Skip to main content
. 2023 Jul 13;96(7):931–963. doi: 10.1007/s00420-023-01981-w

Table 3.

Assessment of the methodological quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cross-sectional studies and evaluation of the validity of the questionnaire used

Authors, year Selection Comparability Outcome Total score (out of 9) Validity of outcome measurement instruments
Representativeness of the sample
Maximum: *
Sample size
Maximum: *
Comparability between respondents and non-respondents
Maximum: *
Control of confounders
Maximum: **
Assessment of the outcome
Maximum: **
Statistical test
Maximum: *
Ascertainment of the outcome measurement
Maximum: *
Braun et al. (2021 ** * * ****a Validated in Germanb
Capasso et al. (2016a) ** * * **** Validated in Italianb
Capasso et al. (2016b) ** * * **** Validated in Italianb
Capasso et al. (2018a) ** * * **** Validated in Italianb
Capasso et al. (2018b) ** * * **** Validated in Italianc
Chatzea et al. (2016) ** * * **** All 3 validated in Greek and Englishc
Espinoza-Castro et al. (2019) ** * * **** Validated in Spanishc
Gosselin et al. (2022) * * ** * * ****** Validated in Frenchc
Martynowska et al. (2020) * * * *** All 3 validated in original languaged
May et al. (2021) ** * * **** Validated in Germanc
Nie and Lämsä (2018) ** * *** All 2 validated in Englishc
Ramos Villagrasa and García Izquierdo (2018) ** * * **** Validated in Spanishc
Rhead et al. (2021) ** * * **** All 3 validated in Englishc
Ronda-Pérez et al. (2019) ** * * **** Validated in Spanishc
Sifaki-Pistolla et al. (2017) ** * * **** Validated in Greek and Englishc
Virga and Iliescu (2017) ** * *** MBI validated in Romanianb, MHI-5 validated in Englishd
Wassermann and Hoppe (2019) ** * * **** All 2 validated in Italiand

aInterpretation: 0–3 stars: low methodological quality, 4–6 stars: moderate methodological quality, 7–9: high methodological quality

bNot known if validated version was used

cValidated version was used

dAt least validated in the original language