Table 1 Modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) for studies reporting the outcomes of surgery
| Score | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Part A: Only one score to be given for each of the seven sections | |||
|
1. Study size-number of joint (N) (If multiple follow-up, multiply N by number of times subjects followed up) | ● >300 | 10 | |
| ● 200–300 | 7 | ||
| ● 100–200 | 4 | ||
| ● <100 | 0 | ||
| 2. Mean follow-up (months) | ● ≥12 | 5 | |
| ● ≥3,and <12 | 2 | ||
| ● <3 | 0 | ||
| 3. Number of different surgical procedures included in each reported outcome. More than one surgical technique may be assessed but separate outcomes should be reported | ● One surgical procedure only | 10 | |
| ● More than one surgical procedure, but >90% of subjects undergoing the one procedure | 7 | ||
| ● Not stated, unclear or °90% of subjects undergoing the one procedure | 0 | ||
| 4. Type of study | ● Randomized control trial | 15 | |
| ● Prospective cohort study | 10 | ||
| ● Retrospective cohort study | 0 | ||
|
5. Diagnostic certainty Compliance with diagnostic guidelines or their content for PJI | ● In all | 5 | |
| ● in >80% | 3 | ||
| ● in <80%, no, NS or unclear | 0 | ||
| 6. Description of surgical procedure given | ● Adequate (technique stated and necessary details of that type of procedure given) | 5 | |
| ● Fair (technique only stated without elaboration) | 3 | ||
| ● Inadequate, not stated or unclear | 0 | ||
| 7. Description of preoperative and postoperative prophylaxis | ● Well described | 10 | |
| ● Fair (technique only stated without elaboration) | 5 | ||
| ● Protocol not reported | 0 | ||
| Part B: Scores may be given for each option in each of the three sections if applicable | |||
|
1. Outcome criteria (If outcome criteria are vague and do not specify subjects’ sporting capacity, score is automatically 0 for this section) | ● Outcome measures clearly defined | 2 | |
| ● Timing of outcome assessment clearly stated (e.g., at best outcome after surgery or at follow-up) | 2 | ||
| ● Use of outcome criteria that has reported good reliability | 3 | ||
| ● Use of outcome with good sensitivity | 3 | ||
| 2. Procedure for assessing outcomes | ● Subjects recruited (results not taken from surgeons’ files) | 5 | |
| ● Investigator independent of surgeon | 4 | ||
| ● Written assessment | 3 | ||
| ● Completion of assessment by subjects themselves with minimal investigator assistance | 3 | ||
| 3. Description of subject selection process | ● Selection criteria reported and unbiased | 5 | |
| ● Recruitment rate reported: >80% or | 5 | ||
| ● <80% | 3 | ||
| ● Eligible subjects not included in the study satisfactorily accounted for or 100% recruitment | 5 | ||