Table A3.
Risk of bias assessment according to Newcastle–Ottawa scale for cohort studies.
| Study | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representativeness of the Exposure Cohort | Selection of the Non-Exposure Cohort | Ascertainment of Exposure | Outcome of Interest Not Present at the Start of the Study | Most Important Factor | Additional Factors | Assessment of Outcome | Follow-Up Was Long Enough | Adequacy of Follow-Up | ||
| Sugimoto et al., 2021 [36] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 (good) |
| Gholami et al., 2020 [51] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 (good) |
| Buisman et al., 2020 [52] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 (good) |
| Kobayashi et al., 2019 [37] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 (good) |
| Nishioka et al., 2017 [38] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 (poor) |
| Goéré et al., 2013 [53] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 (good) |
| Hsu et al., 2013 [40] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 (good) |
| Turan et al., 2013 [41] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 (good) |
| House et al., 2011 [54] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 (good) |
| Liu et al., 2010 [45] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 (good) |
| Kim et al., 2009 [47] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 (good) |
| Kokudo et al., 1998 [61] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 (poor) |