Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of quality evaluation using Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS)

From: Comparison of efficacy of robotic surgery, laparoscopy, and laparotomy in the treatment of ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis

Author

Public year

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

Total scores

Ye et al. [26]

2017

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

18

Gallotta et al. [23]

2016

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

18

Bellia et al. [19]

2016

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

16

Chen et al. [21]

2015

2

2

0

2

0

1

2

0

2

2

2

2

17

Magrina et al. [24]

2011

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

18

Feuer et al. [22]

2013

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

17

Magrina et al. [25]

2013

2

2

0

2

0

1

2

0

2

2

2

2

17

Chen et al. [20]

2016

2

2

0

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

17

  1. A a clearly stated aim, B inclusion of consecutive patients, C prospective collection of data, D endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study, E unbiased assessment of the study endpoint, F follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study, G loss to follow-up less than 5%, H prospective calculation of the study size, I an adequate control group, J contemporary groups, K baseline equivalence of groups, L adequate statistical analyses