《T a b l e2Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i n c l u d e d s t u d i e s》

  提示：宽带有限、当前游客访问压缩模式

本系列图表出处文件名：随高清版一同展现

《Long-term clinical performance of flapless implant surgery compared to the conventional approach with flap elevation: A systematic review and meta-analysis》

1. 获取 高清版本忘记账户？点击这里登录

1. 下载图表忘记账户？点击这里登录

a Th e l o s s t o f o l l o w-u p w a s r e p o r t e d a t t h e p a t i e n t l e v e l；b Th e a g e r a n g e a t b a s e l i n e w a s n o t a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s s t u d y；h o w e v e r，t h e p a t i e n t s a f t e r a n8.5-y e a r f o l l

Table 3 summarises the reviewers’judgments on the risk of bias items and quality for each selected non-randomised study using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale.The overall quality of the selected non-randomised studies reached an average of 6.5 stars，which was acceptable as no study had less than five stars Among these，three studies[28，31，33]were found to have a low risk of bias（seven to eight stars），and three studies[30，32，34]were judged to have moderate risk of bias（five to six stars）.Most studies[30，32-34]（67%）did not reach the comparability of cohorts by adjusting the results for important factors and none of the selected studies（0%）took into account the additional factors，which resulted in an absence of stars and a decrease in study quality.There was also a lack of representativeness of exposed cohorts[32，34]，adequate cohorts over follow-up[30，32]，or demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at baseline[30]in some studies.