Table 5.

MINORS quality assessment

Study	Clearly stated aim	Inclusion of consecutive patients	Prospective collection of data	Endpoints appropriate to study aim	Unbiased assessment of study endpoint	Follow-up period appropriate to study aim	Loss to follow-up < 5%	Prospective calculation of study size	Total quality score
Abdul-Rahman et al. (2009) [23]	1	0	0	1	0	1	2	0	4
Al-Qudah (2006) [24]	1	2	0	2	0	0	2	0	7
Ciriaco et al. (2009) [14]	1	2	0	2	0	2	2	0	9
Divisi et al. (2011) [7]	2	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	4
Ergene et al. (2013) [25]	1	0	0	1	0	0	2	0	5
Gloyer et al. (2011) [12]	2	0	0	1	0	2	2	0	8
Kälicke et al. (2006) [5]	0	0	0	1	0	2	2	0	5
Krinner et al. (2017) [2]	1	0	0	1	0	2	2	0	7
Labbe et al. (2009) [13]	1	0	0	2	0	0	0	0	3
Nazerali et al. (2014) [18]	2	0	1	2	0	2	2	0	9
Queitsch et al. (2011) [20]	2	2	2	2	0	0	2	0	10
Richardson et al. (2007) [26]	1	0	0	2	0	1	2	0	6
Schulz-Drost et al. (2014) [27]	2	0	0	2	0	2	2	0	8
Schulz-Drost et al. (2016) [8]	1	0	0	2	0	2	2	0	7
Wu et al. (2004) [21]	1	0	0	2	0	2	2	0	7
Zhao et al. (2017) [1]	2	0	0	2	0	2	2	0	8
Mean quality score (range)	1.3 (0–2)	0.4 (0–2)	0.2 (0–2)	1.6 (1–2)	0 (0)	1.3 (0–2)	1.8 (0–2)	0 (0)	6.7 (3–10)

0 not reported, 1 reported but inadequate, 2 reported and adequate