Table 5.
Risk of bias analysis MINORS
| Study | A clearly stated aim | Inclusion of consecutive patients | Prospective collection of data | Endpoint appropriate to the aim of the study | Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint | Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study | Loss to follow-up less than 5% | Prospective calculation of the study size | An adequate control group | Contemporary groups | Baseline equivalence of groups | Adequate statistical analysis | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bouman27 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NR | 0 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 12/24 |
| Francesca34 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NR | NR | 2 | 14/24 |
| Gischler22 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 14/24 |
| Walker 201335 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NR | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 20/24 |
| Faugli36 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NR | 0 | NR | NR | NR | 2 | 14/24 |
| Costerus21 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 14/24 |
| Giudici23 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 11/24 |
| Walker 201626 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 21/24 |
| Mawlana17 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NR | 0 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 12/24 |
| Konig28 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | NR | 2 | 2 | 19/24 |
| van der Cammen25 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NR | 0 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 12/24 |
| Harmsen24 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 13/24 |
| Bakal20 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NR | 0 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 12/24 |
| Kubota29 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | NR | 0 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 12/24 |
| Batta37 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | NR | NR | 2 | 14/24 |
NR, not reported.