Ramp lesions: a systematic review of MRI diagnostic accuracy and treatment efficacy

Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics

Table 4 Risk of bias for treatment studies using the MINORS tool

Studies	Item 1	Item 2	Item 3	Item 4	Item 5	Item 6	Item 7	Item 8	Item 9	Item 10	Item11	Item 12
Chen et al. [14]	1	2	0	2	0	2	2	0	–	–	–	–
Furumatsu et al. [26]	2	2	1	2	0	2	2	0	–	–	–	–
Gulenc et al. [28]	1	1	0	2	0	1	2	0	–	–	–	–
Keyhani et al. [36]	2	2	0	2	0	2	2	2	–	–	–	–
Li et al. [43]	0	2	0	1	0	2	2	0	–	–	–	–
Sonnery-Cottet et al. [74]	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	0	2	2	1	2
Thaunat et al. [80]	2	2	0	2	0	2	2	0	–	–	–	–
Yang et al. [85]	2	2	1	2	0	2	2	0	2	2	2	2

Item 1 - Aim: clearly stated aim; Item 2 - Consecutiveness of Patients: all patients fit for inclusion have been included; Item 3 - Prospective Collection: data collected according to a pre-established protocol; Item 4 - Appropriate Endpoints: endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study; Item 5 - Endpoint Assessment: unbiased blinded assessment; Item 6 - Follow-up Period: appropriate to the aim of the study; Item 7 - Losses to follow up: less than 5%; Item 8 - Study Size Calculation: prospective calculation of the study size. Additional criteria for comparative studies: Item 9 - Control Group: adequate control group; Item 10 - Contemporary groups: both groups managed in the same time period; Item 11 - Baseline Equivalence: similar groups; Item 12 - Statistical Analyses: in accordance with the type of study. 0: not reported; 1: reported but inadequate; 2: reported and adequate