Table S1.
Quality assessment of the included studies
| Subjects | Items | Standards | Reference no.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | |||
| Score
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Grytli et al (2013) |
Grytli et al (2014) |
Al-Niaimi et al (2016) |
Aydiner et al (2013) |
Barron et al (2011) |
Beg et al (2017) |
Bir et al (2015) |
De Giorgi et al (2013) |
Diaz et al (2012) |
Ganz et al (2011) |
Giampieri et al (2015) |
Hwa et al (2017) |
Jansen et al (2014) |
Kim et al (2017) |
Lemeshow et al (2011) |
Melhem-Bertrandt et al (2011) |
Springate et al (2015) |
Udumyan et al (2017) |
Wang et al (2013) |
Watkins et al (2015) |
Yusuf et al (2012) |
Botteri et al (2013) |
Spera et al (2017) |
Johannesdottir et al (2013) |
Assayag et al (2014) |
Cata et al (2014) |
Heitz et al (2013) |
Heitz et al (2017) |
Holmes et al (2013) |
Jansen et al (2017) |
Livingstone et al (2013) |
Musselman et al (2014) |
Parker et al (2017) |
Sakellakis et al (2014) |
Shah et al (2011) |
Weberpals et al (2017) |
|||
| Selection | 1. Is the case definition adequate? | 1. Yes, with independent validation* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2. Yes, eg, record linkage or based on self-reports | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. No description | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. Representativeness of the cases | 1. Consecutive or obviously representative series of cases* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2. Potential for selection biases or not stated | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. Selection of controls | 1. Community controls* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. Hospital controls | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||
| 3. No description | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4. Definition of controls | 1. No history of disease (end point)* | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. No description of source | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Comparability | Comparability ofcases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis | 1. Study controls for the most important factor* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2. Study controls for any additional factor (this criteria could be modified to indicate specific control for a second important factor*) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Exposure | 1. Ascertainment of exposure | 1. Secure record (eg, surgical records)* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 2. Structured interview where blind to case/control status* | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. Interview not blinded to case/control status | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4. Written self-report or medical record only | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5. No description | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2. Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls | 1. Yes* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2. No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. Nonresponse rate | 1. Same rate for both groups* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| 2. Nonrespondents described | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3. Rate different and no designation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7 | |||
Note:
*
Indicates 1 score.