Table S1.
Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale (cohort studies)
| Study | Selection
|
Comparability
|
Outcome
|
Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of the nonexposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study | Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis | Assessment of outcome | Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? | Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | ||
|
|
|||||||||
| a. Truly representative of the average (described) in the community ★ b. Somewhat representative of the average in the community ★ c. Selected group of users, for example, nurses, volunteers d. No description of the derivation of the cohort |
a. Community controls ★ b. Drawn from a different source c. No description of the derivation of the nonexposed cohort |
a. Secure record (eg, surgical records) ★ b. Structured interview c. Written self- report d. No description |
a. Yes (end point) ★ b. No |
a. Study controls for the most important factor ★ b. Study controls for any additional factor. (This criteria could be modified to indicate specific control for a second important factor) ★ |
a. Independent blind assessment ★ b. Record linkage ★ c. Self-report d. No description |
a. Yes (select an adequate follow-up period for outcome of interest) ★ b. No |
a. Complete follow-up – all subjects accounted for ★ b. Subjects lost to follow-up unlikely to introduce bias – small number lost >80% (select an adequate %) follow-up, or description provided of those lost ★ c. Follow-up rate <80% (select an adequate %) and no description of those lost d. No statement |
||
|
| |||||||||
| Ieni et al11 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a★ | a★ | ★ | b★ | 8 |
| Lin et al12 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a★ | a★ | 6 | ||
| Liu et al13 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a★ | a★ | 6 | ||
| Currie et al14 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a★ | a★ | ★ | a★ | 8 |
| Di Bonito et al15 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a★ | ★ | 6 | ||
| Aomatsu et al16 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a★ | a★ | ★ | a★ | 8 |
| Kapucuoglu et al17 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a★ | a★ | 6 | ||
| Zhao et al18 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a,b★★ | a★ | ★ | 8 | |
| Mansour and Atwa19 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a★ | a★ | 6 | ||
| Kim et al20 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a★ | a★ | ★ | 7 | |
| Liu et al21 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a★ | a★ | 6 | ||
| Lv et al22 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a,b★★ | a★ | 7 | ||
| Han et al23 | b★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | a,b★★ | a★ | ★ | 8 | |
Notes: A study can be awarded a maximum of one star for each numbered item within the “selection” and “outcome” categories. A maximum of two stars can be given for “comparability”.