Skip to main content

Table 1 Modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) for studies reporting the outcomes of surgery

From: Effectiveness of diluted povidone-iodine lavage for preventing periprosthetic joint infection: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

    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