Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 885–887 | Cite as

Reply to the Letter to the Editor of Fei Jia et al. concerning “Comparison of combined anterior–posterior approach versus posterior-only approach in neuromuscular scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by Shao ZX, et al. [Eur Spine J; (2018) 27(9): 2213–2222]

  • Zhen-Xuan Shao
  • Xia Fang
  • Qing-Bo Lv
  • Zhi-Chao Hu
  • Yuan-Bo Hu
  • Shi-Yun Shao
  • Xiang-Yang WangEmail author
  • Ai-Min WuEmail author
Author's Reply

Above all, we would like to thank for the interest in our article entitled “Comparison of combined anterior–posterior approach versus posterior-only approach in neuromuscular scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis” [1]. We are very grateful for the kind comments and the opportunity to respond to the Letter to the Editor. Our responses are as follows:

Even though the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS) is the best for cohort and case–control study, it is not best method to non-randomized interventional study [ 2, 3]. Meanwhile, the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) is designed for non-randomized study and takes full account of the features of non-randomized study [ 4]. Therefore, we choose MINORS as our quality assessing tool. And thanks to the careful check, we find there are some errors in assessment by MINORS, which is shown in Table  1. In fact, the scores of studies are still acceptable, though it is not most ideal.
Table 1

Quality assessment according to the...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Shao Z, Fang X, Lv Q, Hu Z, Shao S, Hu Y, Wu A, Wang X (2018) Comparison of combined anterior–posterior approach versus posterior-only approach in neuromuscular scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J 27:2213–2222CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25:603–605.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong J, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, Niu Y, Du L (2015) The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med 8:2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhen-Xuan Shao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xia Fang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Qing-Bo Lv
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhi-Chao Hu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yuan-Bo Hu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shi-Yun Shao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Xiang-Yang Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Ai-Min Wu
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedics, Key Laboratory of Orthopaedics of Zhejiang ProvinceThe Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children’s Hospital of Wenzhou Medical UniversityWenzhouChina
  2. 2.The Second School of MedicineWenzhou Medical UniversityWenzhouChina
  3. 3.Department of Spine Surgery, Zhejiang Spine Surgery CentreThe Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children’s Hospital of Wenzhou Medical UniversityWenzhouChina

Personalised recommendations