Table A1.
Risk of bias assessment according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies.
| Study Reference | Selection (0–4) | Comparability (0–2) | Outcome (0–3) | Total Score (0–9) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Several cancers | |||||
| Inoue-Choi, 2013 * | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 | |
| Karavasiloglou, 2019 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Breast cancer | |||||
| Kim, 2011 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| George, 2011 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | |
| Vrieling, 2013 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | |
| Inoue-Choi, 2013 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 | |
| Izano, 2013 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| George, 2014 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| McCullough, 2016 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Jang, 2018 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | |
| Sun, 2018 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 | |
| Zheng, 2018 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 | |
| Karavasiloglou, 2019 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Wang, 2020 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 | |
| Wang, 2021 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Colorectal cancer | |||||
| Inoue-Choi, 2013 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 | |
| Zhu, 2013 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Pelser, 2014 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Fung, 2014 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 | |
| Romaguera, 2015 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 7 | |
| Jacobs, 2016 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Yuan, 2017 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Ratjen, 2017 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Sharma, 2018 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Zheng, 2020 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Tabung, 2020 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Prostate cancer | |||||
| Kenfied, 2014 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 8 | |
| Yang M (1), 2015 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 9 | |
| Zucchetto, 2016 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | |
| Head and Neck cancer | |||||
| Arthur, 2013 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | |
| Crowder, 2019 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |
| Ovarian cancer | |||||
| Thomson, 2014 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 | |
| Hansen, 2020 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | |
| Bladder cancer | |||||
| Westhoff, 2018 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | |
| Multiple myeloma (MM) | |||||
| Lee, 2020 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 8 | |
Each item included the following subcategories: Selection (0–4 points): Representativeness of the exposed cohort, Selection of the non-exposed cohort, Ascertainment of exposure, Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study; Comparability (0–2 points): Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis; Outcome (0–3): Assessment of outcome, Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur, Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts. * The paper by Inoue-Choi 2013 (Ref. [36]) is listed twice since it was considered as two different cohort studies (or two different analyses within the same cohort): one of them analyzed a group of survivors of a group of several cancers, the second one was restricted to breast cancer survivors. Since some items owing to selection and comparability were dealt with differently in each analysis they were considered as two independent studies.