Skip to main content
. 2017 Dec 12;17:939. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4930-3

Table 2.

Risk of bias assessment using Modified Version of Newcastle Ottawa Scale

Is the source population appropriate and representative of population of interest? Is the source sample size sufficient and is there sufficient power to detect a meaningful difference in outcome? Did the study adjust for any variables or confounders that may influence the outcome? Did the study use appropriate statistical analysis methods relative to the outcome of interest? Is there little missing data and did the study handle it accordingly? Is the methodology of the outcome measurement explicitly stated and is it appropriate? Is there an objective assessment of outcome? Was the follow-up sufficiently long enough for the outcome to occur? Was there minimal loss to follow-up and are subjects lost to follow-up unlikely to introduce bias?
Barrett & Scott,
(1990) [36]
2 0 0 2 3 2 NA NA
Bolton et al.,
(2013) [19]
2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3
Cerel et al.,
(1999) [34]
2 1 0 2 0 3 3 1
Cleiren et al.,
(1994) [37]
2 2 0 1 3 1 2 2
Demi and Miles,
(1988) [38]
0 2 1 2 3 2 NA NA
De Groot et al.,
(2006) [30]
2 3 2 3 3 2 NA NA
Dyregrov et al.,
(2003) [33]
3 3 2 3 3 2 NA NA
Erlangsen et al.,
(2017) [35]
3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
Fang et al.,
(2011) [44]
3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
Farberow et al.,
(1992) [22]
2 3 3 3 3 2 2 1
Grad and Zavasnik, (1999) [39] 3 1 0 2 3 2 2 1
Harwood et al.,
(2002) [40]
2 1 2 2 3 2 NA NA
Huang et al.,
(2013) [20]
2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
Kennedy et al.,
(2014) [45]
3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
Kitson, (2000) [41] 2 2 2 2 3 2 NA NA
Miyabashi and Yasuda, (2007) [32] 0 1 1 2 2 2 NA NA
Momen et al.,
(2013) [26]
3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
McNeil et al.,
(1988) [42]
2 0 0 2 3 2 NA NA
Pfeffer et al.,
(2000) [24]
1 0 2 2 2 2 NA NA
Reed and Greenwald, (1991) [43] 3 2 2 2 3 1 NA NA
Seguin et al.,
(1995) [31]
2 1 2 2 3 2 2 1
Weinberg et al.,
(2013) [46]
1 1 2 3 3 3 3 1
Wilcox et al.,
(2015) [47]
2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3
Xu and Li,
(2014) [23]
3 2 3 2 3 2 NA NA