Arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) for talar body fractures: systematic review

Open Access

Review

Table 1

Minors scores for each study to assess methodological quality.

Authors	Score/16	Risk of bias	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Saltzman et al. [11]	10	High	2	2	0	2	1	1	2
Monllau et al. [12]	11	High	2	2	0	2	1	2	2
Subairy et al. [13]	8	High	2	2	0	2	0	0	2
Ogut et al. [15]	11	High	2	2	1	2	0	2	2
Dodd et al. [14]	11	High	2	2	0	2	1	2	2
Sitte et al. [16]	10	High	2	2	1	2	0	1	2
Wajsfisz et al. [17]	12	Low	2	2	2	2	0	2	2
Kadakia et al. [18]	12	Low	2	2	2	2	0	2	2
Hama et al. [19]	12	Low	2	2	2	2	0	2	2
Wagener et al. [20]	12	Low	2	2	2	2	0	2	2
Oliveira et al. [21]	8	High	2	2	0	2	0	0	2
Bardas et al. [22]	12	Low	2	2	2	2	0	2	2

Numbers signification: 1. A clearly stated aim; 2. Inclusion of consecutive patients; 3. Prospective collection of data; 4. Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study; 5. Unbiased evaluation of the study endpoint; 6. Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study; 7. Loss to follow-up less than 5%; 8. Prospective calculation of the study size. The final score comprises the results of 8 items or 12 items in the case of comparative studies.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.