Table 2.
Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for assessing the quality of studies in meta-analysis.
| Study | Selection | Comparability | Exposure | Scores | Citation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representativeness of the Exposed Cohort |
Selection of the Nonexposed Cohort |
Ascertainment of Exposure | Demonstration That Outcome of Interest Was Not Present at Start of Study | Comparability of Cohorts on the Basis of the Design or Analysis | Assessment of Outcome | Was Followed-Up for Long Enough for Outcomes to Occur | Adequacy of Follow Up of Cohorts | |||
| Ding L, 2022 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | ★ | - | ★ | 7 | [9] |
| Zhou QH, 2020 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | [6] |
| Zhang, 2022 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★ | - | ★ | ★ | 6 | [23] |
| Wei L, 2020 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | - | ★ | ★ | 7 | [14] |
| Zhou Q, 2021 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | [12] |
| Zhu Y, 2022 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | - | ★ | - | [26] | |
| Byun J M, 2021 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | [27] |
| Xu Y, 2021 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | - | ★ | ★ | 7 | [7] |
| Luo M, 2021 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | - | ★ | ★ | 7 | [13] |
| Chen L, 2019 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | - | ★ | ★ | 7 | [8] |
| Fu YY, 2020 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | [28] |
| Huang FX, 2022 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | ★ | - | ★ | 7 | [21] |
| Chao LV, 2022 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | [25] |
| Niu Y, 2022 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | [29] |
| Xu G, 2021 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | - | ★ | ★ | 7 | [20] |
| Nishihara D, 2023 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | [15] |
| Zhu Z, 2018 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | - | ★ | ★ | 7 | [17] |
| Jing CY, 2019 | ★ | ★ | ★ | - | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | [16] |
Identify ‘high’ quality choices with a ‘star’. A maximum of one ‘star’ for each item within the ‘Selection’ and ‘Exposure’ categories; maximum of two ‘stars’ for ‘Comparability’. When the ‘stars’ add up to ≥6 for a single piece of literature, the included literature is considered to be of high quality.