Table 1.
Quality assessment using Newcastle–Ottawa scale.
| Selection | Exposure | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO | Study | Case definition | Representativeness | Selection of controls | Definition of controls | Comparability | Ascertainment | Same method | Non-response rate | Total score | AHRQ standards |
| NOS scale Risk of Bias Assessment for case-control studies | |||||||||||
| 1 | Won 2022 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 | Good |
| 2 | Tamimi et al. 201724 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 | Good |
| 3 | Tamimi et al. 201232 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 | Good |
| Selection | Outcome | ||||||||||
| NO | Study | Representativeness of exposed cohort | Selection of non-exposed cohorts | Ascertainment of the exposure | Demonstration that the outcome of interest was not present at the start of study | Comparability | Assessment of outcome | Was the follow-up long enough | Adequacy of the follow-up | Total score | AHRQ standards |
| NOS scale Risk of Bias Assessment for cohort studies | |||||||||||
| 4 | Tamini 2017 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | Good |
| 5 | Seitz et al. 201135 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | Good |
| 6 | Niznik 2019 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | Good |
| 7 | Ogunwale et al. 202031 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Fair |
| 8 | Gill et al. 200933 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | Good |
NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa scale tool AHRQ, Agency for Health Research and Quality.