Table 3.
Risk of bias assessment for included NRS based on the Newcastle–Ottawa scale
| Ong’ech 2012 [38] | Pfeiffer 2010 [45] | Stinson 2010, 2013 [41,42] | Kasenga 2009 [47] (HCT) | Van der Merwe 2006 [40] (HCT) | van’t Hoog 2005 [39] (HCT) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Study group: | ||||||
| Representativeness |
★ |
– |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
| Selection of control |
★ |
★ |
– |
★ |
★ |
★ |
| Exposure |
★ |
– |
★ |
★ |
★ |
– |
| Baseline |
★ |
– |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
|
Cohort comparability: |
★ |
– |
★ |
– |
★ |
– |
|
Outcome: | ||||||
| Assessment methods |
★ |
– |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
| Follow–up |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
| Loss–to–follow–up* |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
| Total | 7 stars | 2 stars | 6 stars | 6 stars | 7 stars | 5 stars |
*As all included NRS used uptake and utilisation of services during pregnancy as their primary outcome, no follow–up beyond the point of recorded uptake of services was reported. We therefore did not award any stars in this category.