Table 2. Methodological quality of included studies.
Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) Quality Assessment Table | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Study | Selection | Comparability | Exposure/Outcome | Total Star |
Dong-liang Chen [13] | ++++ | + | +++ | 8 |
Lei Ma [19] | ++++ | + | ++ | 7 |
Peng Song [22] | ++++ | + | +++ | 8 |
Wei Wei [23] | +++ | + | +++ | 7 |
G.-L. LI [15] | ++++ | + | +++ | 8 |
Xiaoliang Wu [24] | ++++ | + | +++ | 8 |
Yichao Mo [21] | ++++ | + | ++ | 7 |
Weijie Ma [20] | ++++ | + | +++ | 8 |
Reiko Kobayashi [14] | ++++ | + | ++ | 7 |
A star system was used to allow a semiquantitative assessment of study quality. A study could be awarded a maximum of 1 star for each numbered item within the selection and exposure categories. A maximum of 2 stars could be given for comparability. The NOS ranged from 0 to 9 stars. Studies achieved 7 were considered as high-quality ones, 4 to 6 stars were medium-quality studies, and < 4 stars were poor-quality studies.