Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality assessment of the included studies using the MINORS criteriaa

From: Positive buttress reduction in femoral neck fractures: a literature review

First Author

Year

Journal

LoE

Study design

MINORS Criteriab

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Total

Ding et al.

2016

Chin J Orthop Trauma

3

RCS

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

1

17

Lu et al.

2017

China J. Mod. Med.

3

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

1

17

Tian et al.

2018

China J. Mod. Med.

3

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

1

17

Xiong WF et al.

2019

J ORTHOP SURG RES

3

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

1

17

Huang K et al.

2020

J ORTHOP SURG RES

3

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

1

17

Zhao et al.

2021

J ORTHOP SURG RES

3

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

1

17

Zhao GL et al.

2021

BioMed Res. Int.

3

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

18

Yang et al.

2023

Chin. J. Repar. Reconstr. Surg.

3

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

18

Zhu J et al.

2022

BioMed Res. Int.

3

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

18

LI et al.

2022

JMMC

3

PCS

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

21

Jiang QL et al.

2023

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

3

RCS

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

18

  1. aLoE, level of evidence; MINORS, methodological index for non-randomized studies. Blank cells indicate not applicable
  2. bMINORS criteria [20]: 0 points when not reported, 1 when reported but not adequate, and 2 when reported and adequate; maximum score, 24 for comparative studies [1]. A clearly stated aim: the question addressed should be precise and relevant in the light of available literature [2]. Inclusion of consecutive patients: all patients potentially fit for inclusion (satisfying the criteria for inclusion) have been included in the study during the study period (no exclusion or details about the reasons for exclusion) [3]. Prospective collection of data: data were collected according to a protocol established before the beginning of the study [4]. Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study: unambiguous explanation of the criteria used to evaluate the main outcome, which should be in accordance with the question addressed by the study. In addition, the endpoints should be assessed on an intention-to-treat basis [5]. Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint: blind evaluation of objective endpoints and double-blind evaluation of subjective endpoints. Otherwise, the reasons for not blinding should be stated [6]. Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study: the follow-up should be sufficiently long to allow the assessment of the main endpoint and possible adverse events [7]. Loss to follow-up\5%: all patients should be included in the follow-up. Otherwise, the proportion lost to follow-up should not exceed the proportion experiencing the major endpoint [8]. Prospective calculation of the study size: information of the size of detectable difference of interest with a calculation of95%CI, according to the expected incidence of the outcome event, and information about the level for statistical significance and estimates of power when comparing the outcomes [9]. An adequate control group: having a gold standard diagnostic test or therapeutic intervention recognized as the optimal intervention according to the available published data [10]. Contemporary groups: control and studies group should be managed during the same period [11]. Baseline equivalence of groups: the groups should be similar regarding the criteria other than the studied endpoint. Absence of confounding factors that could bias the interpretation of the results [12]. Adequate statistical analyses: whether statistics were in accordance with type of study with calculation of confidence intervals or relative risk
Back to article page

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X