Skip to main content
. 2016 Dec 16;8(4):6003–6012. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.13990

Table 3. The assessment of the risk of bias in each enrolled study using the newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS).

Study [ref] Selection (0–4) Comparability (0–2) Outcome (0–3) Total scale (NOS)
REC SNEC AE DO SC AF AO FU AFU
Costa C [11] 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
Ristimaki A [12] 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
Denkert C [13] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8
Spizzo G [14] 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 8
Wulfing P [15] 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 7
John K [16] 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7
Surowiak P [17] 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Gunnarsson C [18] 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
Park K [19] 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 7
Narssar A [20] 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
Zerkowski MP [21] 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 8
Zhang XH [22] 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
Glynn SA [23] 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8
Miglietta A [24] 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
Rozenowicz RD [25] 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
Barisik NO [26] 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
Ciris IM [27] 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
Holmes MD [28] 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8
Sondes KC [29] 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 7
Dhakal HP [30] 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 5
Kargi A [31] 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 6

REC: representativeness of the exposed cohort; SNEC: selection of the nonexposed cohort; AE: ascertainment of exposure; DO: demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study; SC: study controls for age, sex; AF: study controls for any additional factors (chemoradiotherapy, curative resection); AO: assessment of outcome; FU: follow-up long enough (36 Months) for outcomes to occur; AFU: adequacy of follow-up of cohorts (≥ 90%). “1” means that the study is satisfied the item and “0” means the opposite situation.