Table 3.

Results of the MINORS evaluation.

MINORS item	Algarni 2018	Churchill 1991	Fang 202	Huang 2020	Steinberg 1990	Sun 2014	Tomaru 2021	Vulpiani 2012	Wiesmann 1998	Wu 2018	Wang 2005
1. A clearly stated aim	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
2. Inclusion of consecutive patients	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2
3. Prospective collection of data	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	0	2	0
4. Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
5. Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
6. Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
7. Loss to follow up less than 5%	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
8. Prospective calculation of the study size	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
9. An adequate control group	-	-	2	-	2	2	2	-	-	-	2
10. Contemporary groups	-	-	2	-	0	2	1	-	-	-	2
11. Baseline equivalence of groups	-	-	2	-	1	2	2	-	-	-	2
12. Adequate statistical analyses	-	-	2	-	2	2	2	-	-	-	2
Total score	10	10	17	10	14	20	17	10	10	12	18