Table 4.
Quality assessment of observational studies.
| Study | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representativeness of the exposed cohort |
Selection of the non-exposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study | Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis controlled for confounders | Assessment of outcome | Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? | Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | Final score | |
| Wasay et al. (18) | * | * | * | No star (hemorrhage events were observed at the start of the study, which is the safety outcome) | * | * | * | * | 7, good quality |
| Geisbusch et al. (13) | * | * | * | No star (hemorrhage events were observed at the start of the study, which is the safety outcome) | * | * | * | * | 7, good quality |
| Mendonca et al. (14) | * | * | * | No star (recurrent CVST were observed in two patients, which is the efficacy outcome) | * | * | * | * | 7, good quality |
| Herweh (2019) | * | * | * | No star (hemorrhage events were observed at the start of the study, which is the safety outcome) | No star (remarkable difference between both groups) | * | * | * | 6, fair quality |
| Lurkin et al. (16) | * | * | * | No star (not stated) | ** | * | * | * | 8, good quality |
A study can be awarded a “*” for each item within the Selection and Exposure categories. A maximum of two “*” can be given for Comparability.