Laparoscopic vs open complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation for colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 2 Quality assessment of included non-randomized controlled trials

Quality evaluation criteria	Kim et al[23], 2016	Storli et al[22], 2016	Storli et al[30], 2016	Huang et al[24], 2015	Munkedal et al[25], 2014	Bae et al[27], 2014	Han et al[26], 2014	Zhao et al[28], 2014	Cong et al[29], 2014	Gouvas et al[31], 2012	Sun et al[32], 2012
Clear stated aim	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Inclusion of consecutive patients	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2
Prospective data collection	2	2	2	0	2	0	0	0	0	2	0
Endpoints appropriate to the study aim	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Unbiased assessment of study end-point	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	1
Appropriate follow-up period	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Loss to follow-up less than 5%	1	2	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	2	1
Prospective calculation of the study size	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Adequate group control	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	0	2	2
Contemporary groups	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Baseline equivalence	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Adequate statistical analysis	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1
Total	21	22	22	18	22	20	20	18	15	22	17

0: Non-reported; 1: Reported but inadequate; 2: Reported and adequate.