Comparison of computer-assisted navigated technology and conventional technology in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

Table 4 RCTs studies quality

RCTs	Randomized adequately^a	Allocation concealed	Patient blinded	Care provider blinded	Outcome assessor blinded	Acceptable drop-out rate^b	ITT Analysis^c	Avoided selective reporting	Similar baseline	Similar or avoided cofactor	Patient compliance	Similar timing	Quality^d
Zhang et al. [7]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	High
Lim et al. [35]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	High

^aOnly if the method of sequence made was explicitly introduced could get a “Yes”
^bDrop-out rate < 20% could get a “Yes,” otherwise “No”
^cITT = intention-to-treat, only if all randomized participants were analyzed in the group, they were allocated to could receive a “Yes”
^d“Yes” items more than 7 means “High”; more than 4 but no more than 7 means “Moderate”; no more than 4 means “Low”

ISSN: 1749-799X