Table 1.

Newcastle Ottawa Scale Risk of Bias Assessment

Study	Selection	Comparability	Outcome or Exposure	Total
Case-Control Studies
Alavez-Rubio 2020 [33]	***	**	**	7
Arboleda 2001 [24]	**	**	*	5
Bartrés-Faz 2001 [34]	****	*		5
Campos 2013 [5]	***	**	*	6
Jacquier 2001 [21]	***	**	*	6
Cristiá-Lara 2017 [35]	****	**	**	8
Forero 2006 [22]	***	**	*	6
Mateo 2002 [37]	****		*	5
Moreno 2017 [23]	****	**	**	8
Sevush 2000 [29]	****	*	*	6
Teruel 2011 [36]	****	**	**	8
Villalpando-Berumen 2008 [31]	****	**	*	7
Marca-Ysabel 2021 [25]	****	**	*	7
Aguilar-Navarro 2021 [32]	***	**	*	6
Cohort Studies
Granot-Hershkovitz 2020 [6]	***	**	*	6
Allegri 2018 [27]	****	**	**	8
Molero 2001 [26]	****	**	*	7
Villarreal 2016 [38]	****	**	**	8
O'Bryant 2013 [28]	****	**	**	8
Tosto 2015 [30]	***	**	**	7

Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale scores for the risk of bias assessment of included studies.

Case-Control: Selection (max 4 stars): (1) Is the case definition adequate? (2) Representativeness of the cases (3) Selection of Controls (4) Definition of Controls Comparability (max 2 stars): (1) Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis- A. study controls for the most important factor (*) B. study controls for any additional factor (*) Exposure (max 3 stars): (1) Ascertainment of exposure (2) Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls (3) Non-response rate

Cohort: Selection (max 4 stars): (1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort (2) Selection of the non-exposed cohort (3) Ascertainment of exposure (4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study Comparability (max 2 stars): (1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis- A. study controls for the most important factor (*) B. study controls for any additional factor (*) Outcome (max 3 stars): (1) Assessment of outcome (2) Was follow-up >5 years (3) Adequacy of follow up of cohorts