Table 2.

Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment of observational studies.

First author, year	Study design	Selection	Comparability	Outcome	Total score	Result
Argenziano MG et al. [25] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Cade BE et al. [15] 2020	Cohort	∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	7	Good
Cariou B et al. [26] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	9	Good
Dashti HT et al. [27] 2020	Cohort	∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	7	Good
Dreher M et al. [28] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Feuth T et al. [18] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Goodall JW et al. [29] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Gottlieb M et al. [30] 2020	Case-control	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Ioannou GN et al. [31] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗∗	9	Good
Izquierdo JL et al. [32] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Jimenez E et al. [33] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Kar A et al. [16] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Maas MB et al. [17] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗	7	Good
Mazzoleni L et al. [34] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
McCarthy CP et al. [35] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	9	Good
Memtsoudis SG et al. [19] 2020	Cohort	∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	7	Good
Palaiodimos L et al. [36] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Pellaud C et al. [37] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Suleyman G et al. [38] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Vu C et al. [39] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Xie J et al. [40] 2020	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good

∗∗ means score 2, ∗∗∗ means score 3, ∗∗∗∗ means score 4.