Skip to main content

Table 3 MINORS for assessing quality of included studies

From: Vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling vs no peeling for Macular Hole-induced Retinal Detachment (MHRD): a meta-analysis

Methodological item for non-randomized studies

Uemoto et al. [34]

Liu et al. [35]

Li et al. [28]

Yu et al. [36]

Fan et al. [37]

Wei et al. [38]

1. A clearly stated aim

2

2

2

2

2

2

2. Inclusion of consecutive patients

2

2

2

2

2

2

3. Prospective collection of data

0

0

0

0

0

0

4. Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study

2

2

2

2

2

2

5. Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint

0

0

0

0

0

0

6. Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study

2

0

2

2

0

0

7. Loss to follow up less than 5 %

2

0

0

2

0

1

8. Prospective calculation of the study size

0

0

1

0

0

1

9. An adequate control group

2

2

2

2

2

2

10. Contemporary groups

2

2

2

2

2

2

11. Baseline equivalence of groups

2

2

2

2

1

2

12. Adequate statistical analyses

2

2

2

2

2

2

Total score

18

14

17

18

13

16

Back to article page

BMC Ophthalmology

ISSN: 1471-2415

Contact us