Table 5

The methodological quality of the included studies scored using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies

Study1. A clearly stated aim2. Inclusion of consecutive patients3. Prospective collection of data4. Endpoint appropriate to the study aim5. Unbiased assessment of endpoints6. Follow-up period
appropriate to study aim
7. Loss to follow-up not exceeding 5%8. Prospective calculation of the study sizeTotal score*
Chang et al 332112221011/16
Scott et al 442121222012/16
Scott et al 452221222013/16
Ponzio et al 362222121012/16
Panzram et al 462212221012/16
Chatterji et al 472212221012/16
Canetti et al 482112122011/16
Williams et al 342221210010/16
Naal et al 282212221012/16
Walker et al 372212222013/16
Fisher et al 292222211012/16
Huch et al 532222221013/16
Pietschmann et al 272201221010/16
Jahnke et al 512022221011/16
Vielgut et al 312112122112/16
Mayr et al 302212222215/16
Hepperger et al 502222222115/16
Walker et al 492212221012/16
Ho et al 52201222009/16
  • *The items are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate) or 2 (reported and adequate). The global ideal score being 16 for non-comparative studies.