Table 3

Assessment of methodological quality

Reference	Defined sample*	Representative sample†	Complete follow up‡	Prognosis§	Blinded outcome¶	Statistical adjustment**	Final score
A “yes” is only awarded if the criterion is clearly satisfied. A “no” is awarded if the criterion is clearly not satisfied or if it is unclear if the criterion is satisfied.
*Description of source of subjects and inclusion/exclusion criteria.
†Subjects were selected by random selection or were consecutive cases.
‡At least one prognostic outcome was available from at least 80% of the study population at the three month follow up or later.
§Studies provided raw data, percentages, survival rates, or continuous outcomes.
¶Assessor was unaware of at least one prognostic factor, used to predict the prognostic outcome, at the time they measured the prognostic outcome.
**For at least two prognostic factors with the adjustment factor reported.
NA, Study did not evaluate prognostic factors.
Gabbe et al 2004⁹	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	3
Arnason et al 2004¹⁰	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	2
Beynnon et al 2001⁵	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	4
Soderman et al 2001¹¹	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	2
Leanderson et al 1996¹²	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	2
Wiesler et al 1996¹³	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	3
Shambaugh et al 1991¹⁴	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	3
Ekstrand and Gillquist 1983¹⁵	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	2
Payne et al 1997¹⁶	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	4
Tropp et al 1984⁷	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	1
Willems et al 2005¹⁷	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	2
Willems et al 2005¹⁸	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	3
McGuine et al 2000¹⁹	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	4
Pope et al 1998⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	5
Baumhauer et al 1995⁴	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	3
Hopper et al 1995²⁰	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	1
Milgrom et al 1991²¹	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	1
Holme et al 1999²²	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	1
Eiff et al 1994²³	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	3
Watson 1999²⁴	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	2
Twellaar et al 1997²⁵	No	No	No	No	No	No	0