TABLE 5.
Modified Coleman Methodology Scores a
| Lead Author (Year) | Study Size | Mean Follow-up | No. of Different Versions (of Implant) Used | Type of Study | Description of Indications/ Diagnosis |
Description of Surgical Technique | Survivorship Analysis | Outcome Criteria | Outcome Assessment | Subject Selection Process | Total Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bayomy (2019) 6 | 7 | 4 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 48 |
| Clark (2017) 14 | 10 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 53 |
| Dekker (2017) 15 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 37 |
| Desai (2017) 16 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 34 |
| Kaeding (2015) 26 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 33 |
| Kuenze (2019) 30 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 36 |
| Kuenze (2019) 31 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 12 | 5 | 36 |
| Kuenze (2018) 32 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 37 |
| Nogaro (2020) 40 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 39 |
| Perrone (2019) 44 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 52 |
| Pfeiffer (2018) 46 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 21 |
| Salmon (2017) 52 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 11 | 5 | 63 |
| Sanders (2017) 55 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 40 |
| Slater (2020) 61 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 24 |
| Snaebjörnsson (2019) 62 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 50 |
| Soneru (2019) 63 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 31 |
| Sundemo (2018) 66 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 51 |
| Webster (2016) 70 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 54 |
| Webster (2017) 72 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 47 |
| Yabroudi (2016) 75 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 34 |
a A score ≥85 points is considered excellent, 70-84 is considered good, 50-69 is considered moderate, and anything <50 is considered poor.