Skip to main content
. 2017 Jul 5;8(46):81062–81074. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.19009

Table 2. Newcastle-Ottawa scale scores.

Study Selection Comparability Outcome Total
Lu 2017 [3] 4 2 2 g 8
Song 2014 [4] 4 1 f 2 g 7
Sanchez-Diaz 2014 [5] 4 0 e f 1 h i 5
Hong 2014 [41] 4 1 f 2 g 7
Yang 2015 [42] 4 1 f 2 g 7
Liu 2015 [43] 4 0 e f 1 h i 5
Wang 2014 [45] 4 0 e f 3 7
Allen-Rhoades 2015 [44] 4 0 e f 1 h i 5
Liu 2015 [46] 4 0 e f 0 g h i 4
Han 2015 [47] 4 2 2 h 8
Cai 2015 [48] 4 1 f 3 8
Han 2015 [49] 4 1 f 2 g 7
Wang 2016 [50] 4 2 1 h i 7
Xu 2014 [51] 4 1 f 1 h i 6
Fei 2014 [52] 4 2 1 h i 7
Yuan 2012 [53] 4 1 f 1 h i 6
Ren 2016 [54] 4 1 f 1 h i 6
Xu 2014 [55] 4 1 e 2 g 7
Xu 2014 [56] 4 2 2 g 8
Sarver 2013 [57] 4 0 e f 0 g h i 4
Ma 2014 [58] 4 2 2 g 8
Zhang 2016 [59] 4 0 e f 0 g h i 4
Meng 2016 [60] 4 2 2 g 8
Wu 2010 [61] 4 2 2 g 8

Reasons for lost stars: a no description of the derivation of the cohort; b no description of the derivation of the non-exposed cohort; c no description of exposure ascertainment; d no description of whether outcome of interest was not present at the start of study; e study not controlling the most important factor such as TNM stage; f study not controlling other additional factors, such as age, gender, and smoke; g no description of outcome assessment; h inadequacy of follow-up of cohorts; I follow-up not long enough for outcomes to occur.