Table S1.
Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the quality assessment of five case-control studies on dementia and glaucoma risk
| Quality assessment criteria | Acceptable | Chandra et al13 | Bayer et al14 | Bayer et al15 | Tamura et al16 | Cumurcu et al18 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection | ||||||
| Is the case definition adequate? | Yes, with independent validation | – | – | – | – | – |
| Representativeness of cases? | Consecutive or obviously representative cases | √ | √ | √ | – | – |
| Selection of controls? | Community controls | √ | – | – | – | – |
| Definition of controls? | No history of AD/glaucoma* | – | √ | √ | √ | – |
| Comparability | ||||||
| Study controls for age and sex? | Yes# | √ | – | – | – | – |
| Study controls for additional factors? | Race, comorbidities‡ | – | – | – | – | – |
| Exposure | ||||||
| Ascertainment of exposure? | Secure record or structured interview blinded to case/control status | – | √ | √ | – | – |
| Same method of ascertainment of cases/controls? | Yes | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Non-response rate? | Same for both groups | √ | – | – | – | – |
Notes:
*
Depending on whether AD or glaucoma was the outcome in each case-control study
#
some case-control studies15–17,19 did report frequency matching for age and sex, but these studies did not report relative risks in the text and they had to be calculated crudely from 2×2 tables
‡
some case-control studies15,16 did report frequency matching for comorbidities, but these studies did not report relative risks in the text and they had to be calculated crudely from 2×2 tables.
Abbreviation: AD, Alzheimer’s disease.