Table 3.
Individual MINORS score
| Boyarsky et al.[15] | Dębska-Ślizień et al. [16] | Hallett et al. [17] | Narasimhan et al. [18] | Strauss et al. [19] | Stumpf et al. [20] | Wijtvliet et al. [21] | Yi et al. [14] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clearly stated aim | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Inclusion of consecutive patients | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Prospective data collection | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Endpoints appropriate to study aim | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Unbiased assessment of study endpoint | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Follow-up period appropriate to study aim | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| <5% loss to follow-up | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Prospective calculation of study size | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Adequate control group | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Contemporary groups | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Baseline equivalence of groups | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Adequate statistical analyses | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Total score | 16/24 (67%) | 17/24 (71%) | 19/24 (79%) | 17/24 (71%) | 17/24 (71%) | 19/24 (79%) | 20/24 (83%) | 17/24 (71%) |
The items are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate) or 2 (reported and adequate). The global ideal score is 24 for comparative studies. The corresponding scores are 0–6, very low quality; 7–12, low quality; 13–18, moderate quality and 19–24, high quality.