Methodological index for non‐randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument

By K. Slim, E. Nini, D. Forestier, F. Kwiatkowski, Y. Panis, J. Chipponi. ANZ journal of surgery, 2003

7,147 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Statistics and Probability, Surgery

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9bac152c18c1e7fefd5ce59c719166ed17553079

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

1. L. Du
2. Y. Niu
3. F. Sun
4. Marlies P. Schijven
5. Chao Zhang
6. Sheng Li
7. Yonggang Zhang
8. N. Taylor

In Surgery

1. Esther Z. Barsom
2. C. Ardern
3. Marlies P. Schijven
4. Maurits Graafland
5. N. Taylor
6. Kate E. Webster
7. J. Feller

Citations in the corpus

• Return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the state of play (2011, methodology): “The studies included were assessed using a six-item checklist developed specifically for this review. Specific items were adapted from two previously published quality assessment scales for evaluating non-randomised studies,”
• Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. (2013, methodology): “The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) is the only quality assessment tool for NRSs that has been validated [11].”
• A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis of Triple P-Positive Parenting Program Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling: Effectiveness and Moderating Variables (2008, background): “Although numerous quality assessment scales (Chalmers et al. 1981; Jadad et al. 1996; Slim et al. 2003; Westwood et al. 2005) and checklists (e.g., Bornhoeft et al. 2006; Higgins and Green 2006) have been suggested there is still little agreement neither about the definition of study quality nor…”
• International Society of Geriatric Oncology consensus on geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer. (2014, methodology): “using the methodologic index for nonrandomized studies.(14) We only performed a quality assessment on the studies that were initially retrieved by our literature search.”
• Systematic review on the effectiveness of augmented reality applications in medical training (2016, methodology): “This instrument uses a 12-item scale, scoring a maximum score of 16 points for non-comparative studies and 24 for comparative studies [32].”
• Screening tools for multidimensional health problems warranting a geriatric assessment in older cancer patients: an update on SIOG recommendations†. (2015, methodology): “A quality score of the retrieved studies was carried out by LDC and KVP using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (supplementary Appendix C, available at Annals of Oncology online) [5].”
• Systematic review of serious games for medical education and surgical skills training (2012, methodology): “This validated instrument grades studies on a weighted 12-item scale, with a maximum score of 16 for non-comparative studies and 24 for comparative studies 15 .”
• Risk factors of critical & mortal COVID-19 cases: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis (2020, methodology): “The MINORS [4] was used to assess bias risk.”
• The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review (2015, methodology): “Table S2 presents the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool (27) and Reisch’s”