Table 2.
Selection | Comparability | Exposure | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reference | Adequate Case Definition | Representat-Iveness of MS Cases | Selection of Controls | Definition of Controls | Comparability of Cases and Controls on the Basis of Design or Analysis | Ascertainment of Exposure | Same Method of Ascertainment for Cases and Controls | Non-Response Rate | Score |
Kuk et al. [47] | * | * | * | na | * | * | * | na | 6 |
Zibaei and Ghorbani. [20] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | na | 8 |
Khalilidehkordi et al. [49] | * | * | * | na | na | * | * | na | 5 |
Cicero et al. [39] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
Khalili et al. [48] | * | * | * | na | ** | * | * | na | 7 |
Esfandiari et al. [40] | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | na | 8 |
In this table, one star was given to each article for each item meeting the selection and exposure criteria, and two stars were given for comparability. Using the sum of all points, the quality of each article was rated as high (7–9 points), moderate (4–6), or poor (0–3); not applicable (na).