Muscle pedicle bone flap transplantation for treating femoral neck fracture in adults: a systematic review

Wu, Yipeng; Song, Muguo; Peng, Guangliang; Xu, Yongqing; Li, Yang; Wei, Mingjie; Tang, Hui; Lv, Qian; Wang, Teng; Cai, Xingbo

doi:10.1186/s13018-021-02448-9

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Table 2 Methodologic quality of the case-series

From: Muscle pedicle bone flap transplantation for treating femoral neck fracture in adults: a systematic review

Item	Meyers, 1975 [32]	Morwesselv, 1985 [31]	Biswas, 1997 [29]	Yang, 2006 [27]	Gupta, 2007 [26]	Chaudhuri, 2008 [25]	Gupta, 2008 [24]	Yun, 2010 [22]	Bhuyan, 2012 [21]	Nair, 2014 [19]	Baksi, 2016 [16]	Salgotra, 2016 [15]	Tuzun, 2020 [14]
Study objective
1. Was the hypothesis/aim/objective of the study clearly stated?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Study design
2. Was the study conducted prospectively?	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
3. Were the cases collected in more than one center?	No	No	Unclear	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	Yes	No	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear
4. Were patients recruited consecutively?	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	No	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes
Study population
5. Were the characteristics of the patients included in the study described?	Partial	Partial	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial	Yes
6. Were the eligibility criteria (i.e., inclusion and exclusion criteria) for entry into the study clearly stated?	Partial	Partial	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial	No
7. Did patients enter the study at a similar point in the disease?	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Intervention and cointervention
8. Was the intervention of interest clearly described?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Partial	Yes	Partial	Yes
9. Were additional interventions (cointerventions) clearly described?	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Partial	Yes
Outcome measures
10. Were relevant outcome measures established as priority?	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
11. Were outcome assessors blinded to the intervention that patients received?	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No
12. Were the relevant outcomes measured using appropriate objective/subjective methods?	Partial	Partial	Partial	Yes	Partial	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
13. Were the relevant outcome measures made before and after the intervention?	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Statistical analysis
14. Were the statistical tests used to assess the relevant outcomes appropriate?	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Yes
Results and conclusions
15. Was follow-up long enough for important events and outcomes to occur?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes
16. Were losses to follow-up reported?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
17. Did the study provided estimates of random variability in the data analysis of relevant outcomes?	No	No	No	No	Partial	No	No	No	No	Partial	Partial	Yes	No
18. Were the adverse events reported?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
19. Were the conclusions of the study supported by the results?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Competing interests and sources of support
20. Were both competing interests and sources of support for the study reported?	Partial	Partial	Partial	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Back to article page

ISSN: 1749-799X

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com