Table S3.
Methodological quality assessment results according to ACROBAT-NRS (2014) from Cochrane collaboration for cohort and case–control studies
| References/topics | Bias due to confounding | Bias in selection of participants into the study | Bias in measurement of interventions | Bias due to departures from intended interventions | Bias due to missing data | Bias in measurement of outcomes | Bias in selection of the reported result | Overall bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cohort studies | ||||||||
| Wan et al (2015)1 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Gyllensten et al (2014)2 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Parekh et al (2014)3 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Du et al (2013)4 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Giuliani and Marzola, (2013)5 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Ray et al (2013)6 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Rottenkolber et al (2012)7 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Suh et al (2012)8 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Hug et al (2012)9 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Borovicka et al (2011)10 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Paessens et al (2011)11 | Moderate | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Moderate |
| Carrasco-Garrido et al (2010)12 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Foley et al (2010)13 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Kim et al (2009)14 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Lang et al (2009)15 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Pirmohamed et al (2004)16 | Low | Low | Moderate | NA | Low | Low | Low | Moderate |
| Yee et al (2005)17 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Moderate | Moderate |
| Schneeweiss et al (2002)18 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Bordet et al (2001)19 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Lagnaoui et al (2000)20 | Low | Low | Moderate | NA | Low | Low | Low | Moderate |
| Tafreshi et al (1999)21 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Schneider et al (1995)22 | Moderate | Low | Moderate | NA | Low | Low | Moderate | Moderate |
| Case–control studies | ||||||||
| Tundia et al (2011)23 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Leendertse et al (2011)24 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Serious | Moderate |
| Hafner et al (2002)25 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Senst et al (2001)26 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Suh et al (2000)27 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Bates et al (1997)28 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
| Classen et al (1997)29 | Low | Low | Low | NA | Low | Low | Low | Low |
Notes: Low, low risk of bias (the study is comparable to a well-performed randomized trial with regard to this domain); moderate, moderate risk of bias (the study is sound for a nonrandomized study with regard to this domain but cannot be considered comparable to a well-performed randomized trial); serious risk of bias (the study has some important problems in this domain); critical risk of bias (the study is too problematic in this domain to provide any useful evidence on the effects of intervention). Data from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/MBrowser.html.30
Abbreviations: ACROBAT-NRS, assessment tool for nonrandomized studies of interventions; NA, not applicable.