Table 2.

Methodological quality ratings for each article.

Reference	Parent-Weiss and King 2006 [26]	Doornberg et al. 2006 [25]	McGrath et al. 2009 [27]	Bhat et al. 2010 [9]	Ulrich et al. 2010 [15]	Marinelli et al. 2010 [12]	R. Suksathien and Y. Suksathien 2010 [24]	Liu et al. 2011 [28]
A clearly stated aim	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Inclusion of consecutive patients	2	2	2	2	2	2	0	0
Prospective collection of data	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study	0	0	2	0	2	1	0	2
Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	0
Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study	0	2	0	2	0	2	0	2
Loss to follow-up less than 5%	0	0	2	0	2	2	2	0
Prospective calculation of the study size	0	2	2	0	0	0	0	0
Total score	4	8	12	6	8	9	4	6

MINORS (methodological index for nonrandomized studies) for 8 pre-post intervention design studies. The items are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate), or 2 (reported and adequate).