Table 4.

Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale for the assessment of cohort studies

	Perez Camargo 2017 42	Otten 2019 27	Oflazoglu 2019 43	Harter 2017 28	Gonzalez 2014 29	Harter 2017 46	Fukuda 2015 47	Sato 2015 31	Tamura 2019 32	Yamamoto 2016 33	Blake 2019 48	Miyata 2017 35	Matsunaga 2019 34	Ota 2019 36	Ida 2015 37	Makiura 2016 30	Ishikawa 2016 38	Collins 2017 39	Miyake 2017 50	Dos Reis 2018 45	Hopanci 2019 40	Gibson 2017 49	Barbosa 2018 44	Kamyia 2018 53
Selection
Representative of the cohort?	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Selection of the non exposed	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Ascertainment of exposure	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Demonstration that outcome was not present at start of study
Comparability
Comparability on the basis of design or analysis	*	*	*		*		*	*	*		*		*	*	*	*	*	*						*
Outcome
Assessment of outcome	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*		*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Was follow‐up long enough for outcomes to occur?	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Adequacy of follow‐up of cohorts	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*
Result	G	G	G	F	G	F	G	G	G	F	F	F	G	G	G	G	G	G	F	F	F	F	F	G

Abbreviations: *, yes; F, fair; G, good.