Table 4.
Quality assessment using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (adapted for cross-sectional studies)
| Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Total | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Quality rating | Q1 | Quality rating | Q1 | Q2 | Quality rating | ||
| Brache et al., 2010 | b | c | a | Fair (=2) | ab | Good (=2) | a | a | Good (=2) | 6 |
| Carriere et al., 2010 | b | a | a | Good (=3) | a | Fair (=1) | a | a | Good (=2) | 6 |
| Jackson et al., 2012* | b | a | a | Good (=3) | a | Fair (=1) | a | a | Good (=2) | 6 |
| McAvinue et al., 2012 | b | c | a | Fair (=2) | ab | Good (=2) | a | a | Good (=2) | 6 |
| Jackson et al., 2013* | b | a | a | Good (=3) | ab | Good (=2) | a | a | Good (=2) | 7 |
| McVay et al., 2013 | b | c | a | Fair (=2) | ab | Good (=2) | a | a | Good (=2) | 6 |
| Kousaie et al., 2014* | b | c | a | Fair (=2) | ab | Good (=2) | a | a | Good (=2) | 6 |
| Staub et al., 2014c | d | c | a | Poor (=1) | ab | Good (=2) | a | a | Good (=2) | 5 |
| Staub et al., 2015 | d | c | a | Poor (=1) | ab | Good (=2) | a | a | Good (=2) | 5 |
| Hsieh et al., 2016 | b | c | a | Fair (=2) | ab | Good (=2) | a | a | Good (=2) | 6 |
| Cassarino et al., 2019 | b | a | a | Good (=3) | ab | Good (=2) | a | a | Good (=2) | 7 |
| Mioni et al., 2019 | b | c | a | Fair (=2) | ab | Good (=2) | a | a | Good (=2) | 6 |
*The substudies composing these articles were considered together, as they obtained the same NOS score.