Table 2.
Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) of the Included Studiesa
| Lead Author (Year) | Design | Mean Follow-up, mo | Total CMSb |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blake (2017)4 | Prospective | 12 | 42 |
| Checchia (2008)7 | Prospective | 15.86 | 42 |
| Flinkkilä (2015)9 | Retrospective | 32 | 32 |
| Kraus (2015)12 | Prospective | 23 | 46 |
| Kuner (2019)13 | Retrospective | 17.5 | 44 |
| Lim (2019)14 | Retrospective | 15.26 | 30 |
| Loriaut (2015)15 | Retrospective | 35 | 49 |
| Lu (2010)16 | Retrospective | 3 | 32 |
| Mochizuki (2019)17 | Retrospective | 4.5 | 51 |
| Motta (2014)19 | Prospective | 4.5 | 53 |
| Pujol (2008)24 | Prospective | 6 | 50 |
| Sautet (2018)27 | Retrospective | 20 | 30 |
| Takase (2012)31 | Prospective | 3 | 52 |
| Takase (2019)32 | Retrospective | 19 | 33 |
| Xiong (2018)34 | Retrospective | 35.6 | 42 |
aAll studies were level 4 evidence.
bScored on a scale from 0 to 100: 85-100, excellent; 70-84, good; 55-69, fair; <55, poor.