Table 3.

Risk of bias of cohort studies: ROBINS-I (16).

Study/Bias domain	Confounding	Selection of participants	Classification of interventions	Deviations from intended interventions	Missing data	Measurement of the outcome	Selection of the reported result	Overall
Cummings et al. (18)	Critical risk of bias It is likely that one or more prognostic variables are present unbalanced among the compared groups	Moderate risk of bias Prospective study; start of follow-up coincide for most participants	Moderate risk of bias Criteria used to define the exposure was described	Moderate risk of bias Probably no deviation happened	Low risk of bias Data from cohort were apparently complete	Low risk of bias Objective outcome assessed (mortality) could not be influenced by outcome assessors	Critical risk of bias Participants selected from a larger group and it is not possible to exclude bias related to the reporting of outcomes	Moderate risk of bias
Lighter et al. (20)	Critical risk of bias It is likely that one or more prognostic variables are present unbalanced among the compared groups	Critical risk of bias Retrospective study	Moderate risk of bias Criteria used to define the exposure was described	Moderate risk of bias Probably no deviation happened	No information No information on which to base a judgement on losses during the study period	Critical risk of bias It is very likely that the subjective outcomes assessed were influenced by knowledge of the prognostic factor	Critical risk of bias Participants selected from a larger group and it is not possible to exclude bias related to the reporting of outcomes	Critical risk of bias
Liu et al. (21)	Critical risk of bias It is likely that one or more prognostic variables are present unbalanced among the compared groups	Critical risk of bias Retrospective study	Moderate risk of bias Criteria used to define the exposure was described	Moderate risk of bias Probably no deviation happened	No information No information on which to base a judgement on losses during the study period	Critical risk of bias It is very likely that the subjective outcomes assessed were influenced by knowledge of the prognostic factor	Critical risk of bias Participants selected from a larger group and it is not possible to exclude bias related to the reporting of outcomes	Critical risk of bias
Peng et al. (22)	Critical risk of bias It is likely that one or more prognostic variables are present unbalanced among the compared groups	Critical risk of bias Retrospective study	Moderate risk of bias Criteria used to define the exposure was described	Moderate risk of bias Probably no deviation happened	Low risk of bias Data from cohort were apparently complete	Critical risk of bias It is very likely that the subjective outcomes assessed were influenced by knowledge of the prognostic factor	Critical risk of bias Participants selected from a larger group and it is not possible to exclude bias related to the reporting of outcomes	Critical risk of bias
Simonnet et al. (23)	Critical risk of bias It is likely that one or more prognostic variables are present unbalanced among the compared groups	Critical risk of bias Retrospective study	Moderate risk of bias Criteria used to define the exposure was described	Moderate risk of bias Probably no deviation happened	Low risk of bias Data from cohort were apparently complete	Critical risk of bias It is very likely that the subjective outcomes assessed were influenced by knowledge of the prognostic factor	Low risk of bias All patients admitted to intensive care for SARS-CoV-2 were analyzed	Critical risk of bias
Zheng et al. (19)	Critical risk of bias It is likely that one or more prognostic variables are present unbalanced among the compared groups	Moderate risk of bias Prospective study; start of follow-up coincide for most participants	Moderate risk of bias Criteria used to define the exposure was described	Moderate risk of bias Probably no deviation happened	Low risk of bias Data from cohort were apparently complete	Critical risk of bias It is very likely that the subjective outcomes assessed were influenced by knowledge of the prognostic factor	Low risk of bias All patients with COVID-19 and with metabolic associated fatty liver disease were analyzed	Moderate risk of bias

Low risk of bias: The study is comparable to a well-performed randomized trial with regard to this domain.

Moderate risk of bias: The study is sound for a non-randomized study with regard to this domain but cannot be considered comparable to a well-performed randomized trial.

Serious risk of bias: The study has some important problems in this domain.

Critical risk of bias: The study is too problematic in this domain to provide any useful evidence on the effects of intervention.

No information: No information on which to base a judgement about risk of bias for this domain.