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