Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Orthop. Dec 18, 2017; 8(12): 956-963
Published online Dec 18, 2017. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i12.956
Published online Dec 18, 2017. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i12.956
Table 1 Modified Coleman Methodology Score[6]
Section | No. or factor | Score |
Part A: Only one score to be given for each section | ||
1 Study size - number of patients | ||
> 60 | 10 | |
41-60 | 7 | |
20-40 | 4 | |
< 20, not stated | 0 | |
2 Mean follow up (mo) | ||
> 24 | 5 | |
12-24 | 2 | |
< 12, not stated or unclear | 0 | |
3 Number of different surgical procedures included in each reported outcome. More than one surgical technique may beassessed but separate outcomes should be reported | ||
One surgical procedure | 10 | |
More than one surgical procedure, but > 90% of subjects undergoing the one procedure | 7 | |
Not stated, unclear, or < 90% of subjects undergoing the one procedure | 0 | |
4 Type of study | ||
Randomized controlled trial | 15 | |
Prospective cohort study | 10 | |
Retrospective cohort study | 0 | |
5 Diagnostic certainty (MRI) | ||
In all | 5 | |
In > 80% | 3 | |
In < 80% | 0 | |
6 Description of surgical procedure given | ||
Adequate (technique stated and necessary details of that type of procedure given) | 5 | |
Fair (technique only stated without elaboration) | 3 | |
Inadequate, not stated, or unclear | 0 | |
7 Description of postoperative rehabilitation | ||
Well described (ROM, WB and sport) | 10 | |
Not adequately described (2 items between ROM and WB and sport) | 5 | |
Protocol not reported | 0 | |
Part B: Scores may be given for each option in each of the three sections if applicable | ||
1 Outcome criteria | ||
Outcome measures clearly defined | 2 | |
Timing of outcome assessment clearly stated (e.g., at best outcome after surgery or follow-up) | 2 | |
Objective, subjective and imaging criteria | 6 | |
2 items between objective, subjective and imaging criteria | 4 | |
Objective or subjective or radiological criteria | 2 | |
2 Procedure for assessing outcomes | ||
Subjects recruited (results not taken from surgeons files) | 5 | |
Investigator independent of surgeon | 4 | |
Written assessment | 3 | |
Completion of assessment by subjects themselves with minimal investigator assistance | 3 | |
3 Description of subject selection process | ||
Selection criteria reported and unbiased | 5 | |
Recruitment rate reported | ||
> 80% or | 5 | |
< 80% | 3 | |
Eligible subjects not included in the study satisfactorily accounted for, or 100% recruitment | 5 |
- Citation: Yasui Y, Ramponi L, Seow D, Hurley ET, Miyamoto W, Shimozono Y, Kennedy JG. Systematic review of bone marrow stimulation for osteochondral lesion of talus - evaluation for level and quality of clinical studies. World J Orthop 2017; 8(12): 956-963
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v8/i12/956.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v8.i12.956