Table 2.
Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale cohort studies
| Category | Description |
|---|---|
| Selection | |
| 1. Representativeness of the exposed cohort | a) Truly representative of the average _______________ (describe) in the community |
| b) Somewhat representative of the average ______________ in the community | |
| c) Selected group of users, e.g. nurses, volunteers | |
| d) No description of the derivation of the cohort | |
| 2. Selection of the non exposed cohort | a) Drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort |
| b) Drawn from a different source | |
| c) No description of the derivation of the non exposed cohort | |
| 3. Ascertainment of exposure | a) Secure record (e.g. surgical records) |
| b) Structured interview | |
| c) Written self report | |
| d) No description | |
| 4. Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study | a) Yes |
| b) No | |
| Comparability | |
| 1. Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis | a) Study controls for _____________ (select the most important factor) |
| b) Study controls for any additional factors (this criteria could be modified to indicate specific control for a second important factor) | |
| Outcome | |
| 1. Assessment of outcome | a) Independent blind assessment |
| b) Record linkage | |
| c) Self report | |
| d) No description | |
| 2. Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur | a) Yes (select an adequate follow up period for outcome of interest) |
| b) No | |
| 3. Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | a) Complete follow-up; all subjects accounted for |
| b) Subjects lost to follow-up unlikely to introduce bias; small number lost - > ____ % (select an adequate % follow-up, or description provided of those lost) | |
| c) Follow up rate < ____% (select an adequate %) and no description of those lost | |
| d) No statement | |