Table 1.
Quality assessment criteria used for cohort studies through a modified version of Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
| Criteria | Cohort Studies and Their Assessment Ratings | |||||||||
| Davis & Bell, 1991 [16] | Karjalainen et al., 1999 [17] | Warren & Bishara, 2002 * [12] | Viggiano et al., 2004 [18] | Bishara et al., 2006 * [19] | Vásquez-Nava et al., 2006 [7] | Peres et al., 2007a * [13] | Peres et al., 2007b * [14] | Caramez da Silva et al., 2012 [20] | Moimaz et al., 2014 [21] | |
| Sample Selection Criteria | ||||||||||
|
(1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort (bottle-fed) (a) Truly representative sample ★ (b) Somewhat representative of the average community (e.g., hospital) ★ (c) Potential for selection biases or not satisfying requirements in part (a) (d) No description of the derivation of the cohort |
b (★) | c | b (★) | a (★) | b (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | b (★) | b (★) |
|
(2) Selection of the non-exposed cohort (breastfeeding) (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 |
a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) |
|
(3) Ascertainment of exposure (bottle feeding) (a) Data was collected periodically through questionnaires ★ (b) No mention related to the time interval of the feeding habit evaluation/data was collected only once (c) No description |
a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | b | a (★) | b | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) |
|
(4) Demonstration that malocclusion was not present at the start of study (a) yes ★ (b) no description |
b | b | b | b | b | b | b | b | b | b |
| Comparability of Cohorts on the Basis of the Design or Analysis | ||||||||||
|
(1) Control for confounders (a) The exposure of interest (malocclusion) is adjusted for the one confounder ★ (b) The exposure of interest (malocclusion) is adjusted for two or more confounders ★★ (c) No description related to the adjustment analysis for confounding factors |
c | c | c | a (★) | c | b (★★) | b (★★) | b (★★) | b (★★) | c |
| Outcome—Evaluation of Malocclusion | ||||||||||
|
(1) Diagnosis of malocclusion (a) Clinical examination reporting the use of an index/report of observer agreement—kappa ★ (b) Satisfying requirements in (a) and independent blind assessment ★★ (c) Based on self-reports or not satisfying requirements in part (a, b) (d) No description |
c | c | a (★) | c | a (★) | c | a (★) | a (★) | b (★★) | a (★) |
|
(2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes (malocclusion) to occur (a) Yes ★ (b) No |
a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) | a (★) |
|
(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, follow up rate ≥ 80% ★ (c) Follow up rate < 80 % or not stated |
c | b (★) | c | b (★) | c | c | b (★) | b (★) | c | b (★) |
| Summary Score (Stars) | 4/10 | 4/10 | 5/10 | 5/10 | 5/10 | 5/10 | 8/10 | 8/10 | 8/10 | 6/10 |
★ = one point; ★★ = two points.