Skip to main content

Table 3 The Minors quality score of the non-RCTs

From: A systematic review and meta-analysis of two different managements for supracondylar humeral fractures in children

First author, year

Minors scale

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Total

Ducic 2016 [6]

2

1

1

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

17

Kazimoglu 2009 [7]

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

23

Keskin 2014 [12]

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

1

1

2

16

Ozkoc 2004 [14]

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

22

  1. Numbers 1ā€“12 in heading signified the following: 1 a clearly stated aim, 2 inclusion of consecutive patients, 3 prospective collection of data, 4 endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study, 5 unbiased assessment of the study endpoint, 6 follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study, 7 loss to follow-up less than 5%, 8 prospective calculation of the study size, 9 an adequate control group, 10 contemporary groups; 11 baseline equivalence of groups, and 12 adequate statistical analyses