Table 3.
Quality assessment of the different studies included in this systematic review, using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS).
| Author, Year | Study Design | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Total Score | Quality Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kananen, 2022 [68] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Amin, 2021 [11] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Danninger, 2021 [52] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| El Moheb, 2021 [12] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Lin, 2021 [13] | Prospective cohort | *** | ** | *** | 8 | High |
| Martinez-Tapia, 2021 [14] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Lai, 2020 [15] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Schneider, 2020 [16] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Seino, 2020 [53] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Nishida, 2019 [17] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Om, 2019 [18] | Prospective cohort | **** | * | *** | 8 | High |
| Tokarek, 2019 [54] | Retrospective cohort | **** | * | *** | 8 | High |
| Yoshihisa, 2019 [19] | Prospective cohort | **** | * | *** | 8 | High |
| Crotti, 2018 [20] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| De Palma, 2018 [21] | Prospective cohort | **** | * | *** | 8 | High |
| Keller, 2018 [55] | Retrospective cohort | **** | * | *** | 8 | High |
| Kim, 2018 [22] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Lee, 2018 [56] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Lv, 2018 [23] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| de Souto Barreto, 2017 [24] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Wu, 2017 [25] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Cheng, 2016 [57] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Flodin, 2016 [26] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Calabia, 2015 [58] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Kim, 2015 [59] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Kubota, 2015 [60] | Retrospective study | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Kuo, 2015 [27] | Prospective cohort | **** | * | *** | 8 | High |
| Shil Hong, 2015 [61] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Buys, 2014 [28] | Prospective cohort | *** | ** | *** | 8 | High |
| Clark, 2014 [62] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Ford, 2014 [29] | Prospective cohort | *** | ** | *** | 8 | High |
| Lang, 2014 [30] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Lee, 2014 [31] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Murphy, 2014 [63] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Wu, 2014 [32] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Yamauchi, 2014 [64] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Chen, 2013 [33] | Prospective cohort | *** | ** | *** | 8 | High |
| Dahl, 2013 [34] | Prospective cohort | *** | ** | *** | 8 | High |
| Nakazawa, 2013 [35] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Takata, 2013 [36] | Prospective cohort | *** | ** | *** | 8 | High |
| Tseng, 2013 [37] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Veronese, 2013 [38] | Prospective cohort | *** | ** | *** | 8 | High |
| Woo, 2013 [39] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Yamamoto, 2013 [40] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Zekry, 2013 [41] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| de Hollander, 2012 [42] | Prospective cohort | *** | ** | *** | 8 | High |
| Kvamme, 2012 [43] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Mihel, 2012 [44] | Prospective cohort | *** | * | *** | 7 | High |
| Tsai, 2012 [65] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Cereda, 2011 [45] | Prospective cohort | *** | ** | *** | 8 | High |
| Berraho, 2010 [46] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Han, 2010 [47] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Kitamura, 2010 [48] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Lea, 2009 [66] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Luchsinger, 2008 [49] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Locher, 2007 [50] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Takata, 2007 [51] | Prospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
| Grabowski, 2001 [67] | Retrospective cohort | **** | ** | *** | 9 | High |
Each star is equal to one point. The sum of the stars gives the total score of the NOS. NOS score of ≥7 were considered as high quality studies, NOS score of 5–6 as moderate quality, and NOS Scores less than 5 as low quality.