Table 4.
Newcastle - Ottawa quality assessment scale for selected cohort studies.
| First author, year [ref] | Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of the non-exposed cohort | Ascertainment of the exposure | Outcome of interest absent at baseline | Control for important confounders | Outcome assessment | Adequate follow-up duration | Completeness of cohort follow-up | Total points out of 9 | Risk of bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beasley, 2014 [23] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | Low |
| Cauley, 2016 [24] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | Low |
| Chan, 2011 [25] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | Some concerns |
| Dawson-Hughes, 2002 [26] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | Low |
| Devine, 2005 [27] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | Some concerns |
| Fung, 2017 [21] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | Some concerns |
| Hannan, 2000 [28] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | Some concerns |
| Isanejad, 2017 [29] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 | Low |
| Langsetmo, 2017 [30] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | Low |
| Meng, 2009 [31] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | High |
| Misra, 2011 [22] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | Low |
| Rapuri, 2003 [32] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | Some concerns |
Note. A study can be awarded a maximum of one point for each numbered item within the selection and outcome categories. A maximum of two points can be given for comparability.