Table S1.
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.