Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Orthop. Oct 18, 2017; 8(10): 798-808
Published online Oct 18, 2017. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i10.798
Published online Oct 18, 2017. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i10.798
Score | ||
Part A: Only 1 score to be given for each section | ||
Number of study patients | ||
> 60 | 10 | |
41-60 | 7 | |
20-40 | 4 | |
< 20, not stated | 0 | |
Mean follow-up (mo) | ||
> 24 | 5 | |
12-24 | 2 | |
< 12, not stated or unclear | 0 | |
Number of different surgical procedures included in each reported outcome | ||
1 | 10 | |
> 1, but > 90% of patients undergoing the 1 procedure | 7 | |
Not stated, unclear, or < 90% of subjects undergoing the 1 procedure | 0 | |
Type of study | ||
Randomized controlled trial | 15 | |
Prospective cohort study | 10 | |
Retrospective cohort study | 0 | |
Diagnostic certainty (MRI) | ||
In all | 5 | |
In > 80% | 3 | |
In < 80% | 0 | |
Description of surgical procedure given | ||
Adequate (technique stated and necessary details of that type of procedure provided) | 5 | |
Fair (technique only stated without elaboration) | 3 | |
Inadequate, not stated, or unclear | 0 | |
Description of postoperative rehabilitation | ||
Well described (ROM, WB, and sport) | 10 | |
Not adequately described (2 items between ROM, WB, and sport) | 5 | |
Protocol not reported | 0 | |
Part B: Scores may be given for each option in each of the 3 sections if applicable | ||
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, subjective, or radiological criteria | 2 | |
Procedure for assessing outcomes | ||
Patients recruited (results not taken from surgeons' files) | 5 | |
Investigator independent of surgeon | 4 | |
Written assessment | 3 | |
Completion of assessment by patinets themselves with minimal investigator assistance | 3 | |
Description of patient selection process | ||
Selection criteria reported and unbiased | 5 | |
Recruitment rate reported | ||
> 80% | 5 | |
< 80% | 3 | |
Eligible patients not included in study satisfactorily accounted for or 100% recruitment | 5 |
- Citation: Shimozono Y, Yasui Y, Ross AW, Miyamoto W, Kennedy JG. Scaffolds based therapy for osteochondral lesions of the talus: A systematic review. World J Orthop 2017; 8(10): 798-808
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v8/i10/798.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v8.i10.798