Table 3.

Papers reviewed, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score, and bias criteria.

	Study	Selection /4	Comparability /2	Outcome /3	AHRQ criteria
1	Beddhu et al. 200928	***	**	**	Good
2	Beddhu et al. 201529	***	**	***	Good
3	Chang et al. 201143	***	**	***	Good
4	Chen et al. 200830	**	**	**	Fair
5	Chen et al. 201442	**	**	***	Fair
6	Chin et al. 201446	**	**	*	Poor
7	Delgado et al. 201539	**	**	***	Fair
8	Doyle et al. 201547	***	**	**	Good
9	Griva et al. 201348	***	**	***	Good
10	Gulati et al. 201225	***	**	***	Good
11	Lattanzio et al. 201524	***	**	***	Good
12	Molnar-Varga et al. 201149	**	**	**	Fair
13	Nastasi et al. 2017	***	**	**	Good
14	Navaneethan et al. 201431	****	**	***	Good
15	Pechter et al. 201426	****	-	*	Poor
16	Pereira et al. 201550	***	**	***	Good
17	Prihodova et al. 201452	***	**	**	Good
18	Ricardo et al. 201332	**	**	**	Fair
19	Ricardo et al. 201533	**	**	***	Fair
20	Robinson-Cohen et al. 200934	***	**	***	Good
21	Robinson-Cohen et al. 201435	***	**	***	Good
22	Rosas et al. 201236	***	**	***	Good
23	Rosharavan et al. 201340	****	**	**	Good
24	Shlipak et al. 200537	***	**	**	Good
25	Tikkanen-Dolenc et al. 2017	***	**	**	Good
26	Tsai et al. 201744	***	**	***	Good
27	Wang et al. 201327	***	**	***	Fair
28	Yango et al. 200638	***	**	***	Good
29	Zelle et al. 201145	***	**	**	Good

AHRQ, Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality.