Table 3.
Quality of the Studies Included in the Systematic Review According to the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale
| Study | Item 1 | Item 2 | Item 3 | Item 4 | Item 5 | Item 6 | Item 7 | Item 8 | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mazza et al16 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Lukin et al17 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | 9 |
| Jacobs et al18 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 6 | ||
| Kunisaki et al19 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Rodríguez-Lago et al20 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 5 | |||
| Brenner et al21 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 6 | ||
| Tursi et al22 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Taxonera et al23 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 6 | ||
| Gubatan et al24 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 6 | ||
| Bezzio et al25 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 6 | ||
| Khan et al26 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Rosen et al27 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Allocca et al28 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Dolinger et al29 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 6 | ||
| Turner et al30 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Marafini et al31 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Wolf et al38 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Di Ruscio et al32 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Bezzio and Saibeni34 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Bezzio et al33 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Calabrese et al35 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Giulia and Patrizia36 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 4 | ||||
| Singh et al37 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 6 |
NOTE. Items were as follows: 1, representativeness of the exposed cohort; 2, selection of the nonexposed cohort; 3, ascertainment of exposure; 4, demonstration that the outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study; 5, assessment of the outcome; 6, follow-up period was long enough for outcomes to occur; 7, adequacy of follow-up evaluation (>75% follow-up evaluation, or description for those lost); 8, comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis. Single stars, 1 point; double stars, 2 points.