Table 3.

Quality assessment of included studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale [39]

Newcastle–Ottawa Scale quality assessment for cohort studies
Study	Selection				Comparability		Outcome			Quality score
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Cieszczyk et al. 2011 [30]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Cieszczyk et al. 2012 [29]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Dionísio et al. 2017 [46]	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	6
Djarova et al. 2013 [43]	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	7
Fedotovskaya et al. 2013 [12]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Ginevičienė et al. 2014 [11]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Grealy et al. 2015 [13]	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	6
Gronek et al. 2018 [31]	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	6
Horozoglu et al. 2021 [47]	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	6
Maestro et al. 2022 [48]	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	6
Meckel et al. 2012 [42]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Muniesa et al. 2010 [49]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Petr et al. 2022 [50]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Pranckeviciene et al. 2021 [51]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Ruiz et al. 2009 [15]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Santiago et al. 2010 [44]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Tsianos et al. 2009 [52]	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	6
Varillas Delgado et al. 2020 [41]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Varillas Delgado et al. 2022 [53]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	8
Varillas Delgado et al. 2022 [54]	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	6

1: Representativeness of the exposed cohort, 2: Selection of the nonexposed cohort, 3: Ascertainment of exposure, 4: Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study, 5 and 6: Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis, 7: Assessment of outcome, 8: Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur and 9: Adequacy of follow up of cohorts

1: Was assigned when the study met the requested criteria

0: Was assigned when the study did not meet the requested criteria