From: Wound drains in posterior spinal surgery: a meta-analysis
Quality assessment for non-randomized trials | Sen et al. [15] | Kanayama et al. [13] | Walid 2011 | Diab et al. [12] |
---|---|---|---|---|
A clearly stated aim | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Inclusion of consecutive patients | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Prospective data collection | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
A follow-up period appropriate to the aims of study | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Less than 5 % loss to follow-up | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Prospective calculation of the sample size | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
An adequate control group | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Contemporary groups | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Baseline equivalence of groups | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
Adequate statistical analyses | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Total score | 19 | 17 | 18 | 17 |