Table E2.

Assessment of risk for bias in each study with National Institutes of Health Study Quality Assessment tools in prognosis meta-analysis

First author	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	Score
Cohort and cross-sectional studies
Arshad SE1	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
Mato ARE2	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
Poblador-Plou BE3	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
van Gerwen ME4	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Hernandez-Galdamez DRE5	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	NA	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	i
Hernandez-Vasquez AE6	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	NA	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	i
Almazeedi SE7	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NA	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Perez-Guzman PNE8	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Tartof SYE9	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Parra-Bracamonte GME10	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	NR	NA	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	i
Fox TE11	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Yehia BRE12	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Emami AE13	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
Trabulus S E14	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Santos MME15	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	NR	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Ioannou GNE16	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Gutierrez JPE17	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	NA	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	i
Clift AKE18	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
Kim TSE19	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Tang OE20	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Ken-Dror GE21	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Choi HGE22	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	NR	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
Nyabera AE23	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	NR	No	NR	NR	NR	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Lee SCE24	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	ii
Murillo-Zamora EE25	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
Ling SFE26	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	NA	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	i
Izurieta HSE27	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Lundon DJE28	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NR	NA	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	i
Schwartz KLE29	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	NR	NA	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	i
Martos-Benítez FDE30	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
Oh TKE31	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
Park BEE32	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
Lopez Zuniga MAE33	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Mollalo AE34	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NR	NA	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	i
Lohia PE35	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Cedano JE36	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Cao LE37	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	NR	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
Ho KSE38	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Guan WJE39	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Bloom CIE40	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	ii
Osibogun AE41	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
de Souza FSHE42	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Mulhem EE43	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Topless RKE44	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Bennett KEE45	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Lieberman-Cribbin WE46	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	NR	NA	No	No	NR	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	i
Calmes DE47	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	NR	NR	No	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Choi YJE48	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Kim SE49	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NA	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NA	Yes	i
Alwafi HE50	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Vera-Zertuche JME51	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Elhadi ME52	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Cummins LE53	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Castro MCE54	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Beltramo GE55	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Robles-Pérez EE56	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	NR	NR	Yes	Yes	i
De Rosa FGE57	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Marciniak SJE58	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	NR	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	i
Kelly JDE59	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	NR	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	i
Case-control studies
Shah PE60	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	NR	Yes	i
Ahlstrom BE61	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	i
Case series studies
Girardin JLE62	Yes	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	NR	NR	Yes	Yes	i

NA, not applicable; NR, not reported.

For cohort and cross-sectional studies, quality was rated as 0 for poor (0-4 of 14 questions), i for fair (5-10 of 14 questions), or ii for good (11-14 of 14 questions): (1) Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? (2) Was the study population clearly specified and defined? (3) Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? (4) Were all of the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? (5) Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? (6) For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured before the outcome(s) being measured? (7) Was the time frame sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? (8) For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (eg, categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)? (9) Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (10) Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? (11) Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (12) Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? (13) Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? (14) Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)? For case-control studies, quality was rated as 0 for poor (0-3 of 12 questions), i for fair (4-8 of 12 questions), or ii for good (9-12 of 12 questions): (1) Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated and appropriate? (2) Was the study population clearly specified and defined? (3) Did the authors include a sample size justification? (4) Were controls selected or recruited from the same or similar population that gave rise to the cases (including the same time frame)? (5) Were the definitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria, algorithms, or processes used to identify or select cases and controls valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (6) Were the cases clearly defined and differentiated from controls? (7) If less than 100% of eligible cases and/or controls were selected for the study, were the cases and/or controls randomly selected from those eligible? (8) Was there use of concurrent controls? (9). Were the investigators able to confirm that the exposure or risk occurred before the development of the condition or event that defined a participant as a case? (10) Were the measures of exposure or risk clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently (including the same time period) across all study participants? (11) Were the assessors of exposure or risk blinded to the case or control status of participants? (12) Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically in the analyses? If matching was used, did the investigators account for matching during study analysis? For case series studies, quality was rated as 0 for poor (0-2 of nine questions), i for fair (3-6 of nine questions), or ii for good (7-9 of nine questions): (1) Was the study question or objective clearly stated? (2) Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition? (3) Were the cases consecutive? (4) Were the subjects comparable? (5) Was the intervention clearly described? (6). Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (7) Was the length of follow-up adequate? (8) Were the statistical methods well-described? (9) Were the results well-described?