Skip to main content
. 2021 Dec 14;12:786664. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.786664

Table 2.

Overall quality rating of the included studies using the The National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.

Study Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Quality
Coffey et al. (32) Y Y NR Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
Saladin et al. (47) Y Y NR Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N NA Y Good
Brady et al. (41) Y Y NR Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Good
Schumacher et al. (42) Y Y NR N N N Y N Y N Y N N N Poor
Coffey et al. (30) Y Y NR Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Good
Beckham et al. (43) Y Y NR Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Good
Driessen et al. (58) Y Y Y Y N NA N NA Y NA Y NA NA Y Fair
Coffey et al. (31) Y Y NR Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N NA Y Good
Drapkin et al. (51) Y Y NR Y N NA NA NA Y N Y NA NA N Poor
Jayawickreme et al. (50) Y Y NR Y N NA NA NA Y NA Y N NA N Poor
Nosen et al. (38) Y Y NR Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N NA N Good
Simpson et al. (52) Y Y NR N N Y Y NA Y Y Y NA Y N Fair
Dedert et al. (44) Y Y NR Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N NA N Fair
Boden et al. (56) Y Y NR Y N NA NA Y Y NA Y NA NA Y Fair
Tull et al. (45) Y Y NR N N Y Y Y Y N Y N NA Y Fair
Dedert et al. (54) Y Y NR Y N Y Y NA Y Y Y NA N N Fair
Kwako et al. (39) Y Y NR Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y NA N Y Good
Heinz et al. (49) Y Y NR Y N NA NA Y Y NA Y NA NA N Poor
Kaczkurkin et al. (53) Y Y NR Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Good
Ralevski et al. (40) Y Y NR Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y NA NA N Good
McHugh et al. (46) Y Y NR Y N Y Y N Y N Y N NA N Poor
Peck et al. (57) Y Y NR N N Y Y NA Y N Y NA N N Poor
Somohano et al. (37) Y Y NR Y N NA NA N Y NA Y N Y N Poor
Lyons et al. (48) Y Y NR N N NA NA NA Y NA Y NA NA Y Poor
Rosenblum et al. (55) Y Y NR Y N NA NA NA Y NA Y N NA N Poor
Vogel et al. (59) Y Y NR Y N Y Y N Y Y Y NA N Y Good

Y, Yes; N, No; NR, Not Reported; NA, Not Applicable.

Q1: Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated?; Q2: Was the study population clearly specified and defined?; Q3: Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%?; Q4: Were all 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?; Q5: Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided?; Q6: For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured?; Q7: Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed?; Q8: For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)?; Q9: Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?; Q10: Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time?; Q11: Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?; Q12: Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants?; Q13:Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less?; Q14: Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?.