Table 2.
Risk of bias summary table for non-RCT.
| No. | Representativeness of the exposed cohort (*) | Selection of the non-exposed cohort (*) (Drawn from same community as exposed) | Ascertainment of exposure (*) On Secure record (study Model) |
Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study (*) | Comparability of cohorts in the basis of the design or analysis (**) | Assessment of outcome (*) | Was follow up long enough for outcomes to occur (*) | Adequacy of follow up of cohorts (*) | Overall rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Artun et al. 1997 | * | * | * | * | Did not control for confounders | No blinding * |
* 3 years |
* | 7* Good quality |
| 2.Taner 2012 | * | * | * | * | Did not control for confounders | No blinding | Only 6/12 | * | 5* Fair quality |
| 3. Lee 2009 | * | * | * | * | Did not control for confounders | No blinding | Only 6/12 | No statement | 4* Fair quality |
| 4.Ardeshna 2011 | * | * | * | * | Did not control for confounders | No blinding | * Baseline, 1 week, 1 month, 3month interval ? 22 censored |
* | 6* Fair quality |
| 5.Zachrisson 1977 | No description | No description | ? No description |
* | Did not control for confounders | No blinding | * | No statement | 2* Poor quality |
| 6.Talic 2016 | * | * | * | * | Did not control for confounders | No blinding | Only 6 months | No statement | 4* Fair quality |
| 7. Gokce 2019 | * | * | * | * | Did not control for confounders | No blinding | Only 6 months | * | 5* Fair quality |
| 8. Pop et al. 2018 | * | * | * | * | Did not control for confounders | No blinding | * 1 year |
No statement | 6* Fair quality |
| 9. Danz et al. 2022 | * | * | * | * | Did not control for confounders | No blinding | * 1 year |
No statement | 5* Fair quality |