TABLE 5.

Risk of bias assessment of prospective studies examining dietary sodium and its association with clinical cardiovascular disease indicators¹

Reference	Association	Control of key confounding	Selection unrelated to sodium/outcome	Coinciding follow-up/baseline exam	Departures from intended intervention	Potential for systematic error	Potential for random error	Adequate follow-up	Indicator assessors blinded to exposure group
Lamelas et al. (136)	+	H	M	U	U	H	H	U	U
Liu H et al. (143)	+	L	L	H	U	H	H	L	U
Mente et al. (153)	+	H	U	H	U	H	H	U	U
Merino et al. (154)	+	L	U	L	U	H	H	L	U
Mills et al. (156)	+	L	H	L	U	L	L	L	U
Polonia et al. (174)	+	H	H	U	U	L	H	U	U
Saleh et al. (186)	+	H	H	U	H	L	H	U	U
Zhao et al. (224)	+	H	H	U	U	L	H	U	U
Doukky et al. (96)	0	H	H	U	U	H	L	U	L
Kalogeropoulos et al. (123)	0	H	H	H	U	H	L	U	U
Lelli et al. (138)	0	L	M	H	U	L	H	U	U
Prentice et al. (175)	0	U	H	U	U	H	L	U	L
Singer et al. (192)	0	H	H	H	H	H	H	U	U
Welsh et al. (216)	0	L	L	L	U	H	H	U	U
Kieneker et al. (128)	−	L	M	U	U	L	L	U	L
Saulnier et al. (189)	−	H	H	U	U	H	H	U	L
Mente et al. (152)	U-shaped	H	H	U	U	H	H	U	U
Total high rankings		10	10	5	2	11	12	0	0

¹ n = 17. H, high; L, low; M, moderate; U, unclear.