Skip to main content

Table 7 Methodological Quality of Included Studies by MINORS Criteria

From: Free versus pedicled flaps for reconstruction of head and neck cancer defects: a systematic review

Study, Year

Type of Study

Score

Methodological items for non-randomized studies

Additional criteria in the case of comparative study

Clearly Stated Aim

Inclusion of Consecutive Patients

Prospective Collection of Data

Endpoints Appropriate to Aim of Study

Unbiased Assessment of Study Endpoint

Appropriate Follow-up Period to Aim of Study

Loss to Follow-up <5%

Prospective Calculation of Study Size

An adequate control group

Contemporary groups

Baseline equivalence of groups

Adequate statistical analyses

Sinha, 2017

Retrospective review

20

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

0

2

Goyal, 2017

Retrospective review

18

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

Li, 2016

Retrospective review

19

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

Kozin, 2016

Retrospective review

20

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

Howard, 2016

Retrospective review

18

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

Geiger, 2016

Retrospective review

20

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

Gao, 2016

Retrospective review

16

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

Forner, 2016

Retrospective review

20

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

Zhang S, 2015

Retrospective review

19

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

Zhang X, 2014

Retrospective review

19

2

2

2

2

0

2

1

0

2

2

2

2

Jing, 2014

Retrospective review

17

1

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

Granzow, 2013

Retrospective review

18

1

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

Deganello, 2013

Retrospective review

18

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

Fang, 2013

Retrospective review

18

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

Paydarfar, 2011

Retrospective review

20

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

Hsing, 2011

Retrospective review

18

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

Chan Y, 2011

Prospective

18

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

Dermirtas, 2010

Retrospective review

20

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

O’Neil, 2010

Retrospective review

20

2

2

2

2

0

1

2

2

2

2

1

2

Mallet, 2009

Retrospective review

18

2

2

2

2

0

1

2

0

2

2

1

2

de Bree, 2007

Retrospective review – Matched cohort

19

2

2

2

2

0

2

1

0

2

2

2

2

Smeele, 2006

Retrospective review – Matched cohort

20

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

Chien, 2005

Case series

17

2

2

2

2

0

1

2

0

2

2

0

2

Chepeha, 2004

Retrospective review

19

2

2

2

2

0

1

2

0

2

2

2

2

Funk, 2002

Case-control study

20

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

Petruzzelli, 2002

Retrospective review

18

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

Amarante, 2000

Case-series

6

1

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

Tsue, 1997

Retrospective review

19

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

1

2

Kroll, 1997

Retrospective review

17

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

1

0

Kroll 1992

Retrospective review

18

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

  1. The items are scored 0 (not reported), 1 (reported but inadequate) or 2 (reported and adequate). The global ideal score being 16 for non-randomized studies and 24 for comparative studies
Back to article page

Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery

ISSN: 1916-0216

Contact us