Table 2.
Methodological quality assessment based on the NOSa
| Source | Selection | Comparabilityf | Outcome | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||||||
| Representativenessb | Selectionc | Exposured | Demonstratione | Assessmentg | Follow-Uph | Adequacyi | Totalj | ||
| Aoe (2004) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Du (2012) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Yu (2012) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Liu (2013) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Maráz (2013) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Luo (2012) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Barcala (2010) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Adžić (2011) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Kim (2014) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Ji (2014) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Kim (2014) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Holgersson (2012) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
a
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale;
b
Representativeness of the Exposed Cohort (0.1);
c
Selection of the Non -Exposed Cohort (0,1);
d
Ascertainment of Exposure (0,1);
e
Demonstration That Outcome of Interest Was Not Present at Start of Study (0.1);
f
Comparability of Cohorts on the Basis of the Design or Analysis (0,1,2);
g
Assessment of Outcome (0.1);
h
Was Follow-Up Long Enough for Outcomes to Occur (0.1);
i
Adequacy of Follow Up of Cohorts (0,1);
j
Total: minimum equals 1; maximum equals 9 stars.