Cited by 7,603Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

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

Slim, Karem, Nini, Emile, Forestier, Damien, Kwiatkowski, Fabrice, Panis, Yves, Chipponi, Jacques·2003·ANZ Journal of Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because of specific methodological difficulties in conducting randomized trials, surgical research remains dependent predominantly on observational or non-randomized studies. Few validated instruments are available to determine the methodological quality of such studies either from the reader's perspective or for the purpose of meta-analysis. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate such an instrument. METHODS: After an initial conceptualization phase of a methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a list of 12 potential items was sent to 100 experts from different surgical specialties for evaluation and was also assessed by 10 clinical methodologists. Subsequent testing involved the assessment of inter-reviewer agreement, test-retest reliability at 2 months, internal consistency reliability and external validity. RESULTS: The final version of MINORS contained 12 items, the first eight being specifically for non-comparative studies. Reliability was established on the basis of good inter-reviewer agreement, high test-retest reliability by the kappa-coefficient and good internal consistency by a high Cronbach's alpha-coefficient. External validity was established in terms of the ability of MINORS to identify excellent trials. CONCLUSIONS: MINORS is a valid instrument designed to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized surgical studies, whether comparative or non-comparative. The next step will be to determine its external validity when used in a large number of studies and to compare it with other existing instruments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Slim, K., Nini, E., Forestier, D., Kwiatkowski, F., Panis, Y., & Chipponi, J.
Affiliations
  • Centre Jean Perrin (FR)
  • Hôpital Lariboisière (FR)
Venue
ANZ Journal of Surgery
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-09
Volume
73
Issue
9
Pages
712-716
ISSN
  • 1445-1433 (ISSN-L)
  • 1445-2197
OpenAlex
W2017044005
Cited by
7,603
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 752 · 2025: 1014 · 2024: 988 · 2023: 896 · 2022: 846 · 2021: 814 · 2020: 634 · 2019: 444 · 2018: 336 · 2017: 247 · 2016: 200 · 2015: 146 · 2014: 93 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 45
FWCI
5.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • ANZ Journal of Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
minors, methodological quality assessment, non-randomized studies, observational studies, surgical research, instrument development, inter-reviewer agreement, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, generalizability, meta-analysis
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Peer Review, Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review