Table 6. The comparison and outcome of Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
| Author Publication y | Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis a | Assessment of outcome (a or b = 1) | follow-up long enough (a = 1, b = 0) | Adequacy of follow up of cohorts (a = 1, b = 0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harousseau 1997[55] | NA | b | a | b |
| Slovak 2000[6] | NA | b | a | a |
| Suciu 2003[5] | Age, WBC count at diagnosis, FAB subtype, and the CR rate after the first induction coursec | b | a | a |
| Tsimberidou 2003[56] | Age b | b | a | a |
| Brunett 2006[12,64] | Age, Sex, Type of AML, WBC count, FAB type,Risk group, Status after course 1, Intermediate-risk, Adverse-risk, Unknown c Favorable-risk b | b | a | a |
| Cornelissen 2007[11] | Age, FAB type, WBC count, Number of cycles to achieve remission, Cytogenetic risk distributions prognostic risk score b | b | a | a |
| Pfirrmann 2012[57] | only described: age, sex, WBC count, disease status, cytogenetic risk profile at diagnosis, combined cytogenetic risk, disease status variable, FLT3-ITD mutant-to-wild-type ratio, NPM1 mutation status, CEBPA mutation status, peroxidase-positive blasts, CD34-positive blasts, Blasts in bone marrow after first cycle of induction | b | a | b |
| Zhu 2013 d [58] | Age, WBC count, BM blast c | b | a | a |
| Stelljes 2014[59] | Age, cytogenetic risk classification, sex, FAB type, WBC count, LDH, induction treatment c | b | a | a |
y indicates year; NA, not applicable; and WBC, white blood cell.
aFor most of the intermediate-risk are subgroup of the AML patients, there are no direct comparison between intermediate-risk group, so this item we just referred, not literally to the criteria
b P < 0.05
c P > 0.05
dcomparison of group among intermediate-risk AML patients, other comparison of AML patients.