Table 1.
Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale.
| Selection |
| (1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort |
| (a) Truly representative of the average “GC patient” in the community (1 star) |
| (b) Somewhat representative of the average “GC patient” in the community (1 star) |
| (c) Selected group of users (e.g., nurses, volunteers) |
| (d) No description of the derivation of the cohort |
| (2) Selection of the nonexposed cohort |
| (a) Drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort (1 star) |
| (b) Drawn from a different source |
| (c) No description of the derivation of the nonexposed cohort |
| (3) Ascertainment of exposure (proof of GC and platinum-based chemotherapy) |
| (a) Secure record (e.g., chemotherapy records) (1 star) |
| (b) Structured interview |
| (c) Written self-report |
| (d) No description |
| (4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study |
| (a) Yes (1 star) |
| (b) No |
| Comparability |
| (1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis |
| (a) Study controls for “chemotherapy regimens” (1 star) |
| (b) Study controls for any additional factor (age, stage, etc.) (1 star) |
| Outcome |
| (1) Assessment of outcome (death or recurrence) |
| (a) Independent blind assessment (1 star) |
| (b) Record linkage (1 star) |
| (c) Self-report |
| (d) No description |
| (2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? (death or recurrence) |
| (a) Yes (sufficient follow-up time was selected to observe the outcome) (1 star) |
| (b) No |
| (3) Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts |
| (a) Complete follow-up all subjects accounted for (1 star) |
| (b) Subjection lost to follow-up unlikely to introduce bias-small number lost “25%” or description provided of those lost (1 star) |
| (c) Follow-up rate “75%” and no description of those lost |
| (d) No statement |
GC: gastric cancer.