Table 3.

Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment of observational studies.

First author, year	Study design	Selectiona	Comparabilityb	Outcomec	Total score	Result
Giraudo C et al. [20] 2021	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗	7	Good
Kim JW et al. [22] 2021	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Ma Y et al. [23] 2021	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗	7	Good
McGovern J et al. [24] 2021	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Moctezuma-Velazquez P et al. [25] 2021	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Schiaffino S et al. [26] 2021	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Wilkinson TJ et al. [27] 2021	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good
Yi X et al. [28] 2021	Cohort	∗∗∗	∗∗	∗∗∗	8	Good

^a(1) representativeness of the exposed cohort; (2) selection of the non-exposed cohort; (3) ascertainment of exposure; (4) demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study.

^b(1) comparability of cohorts on the basis of design or analysis, (maximum two stars).

^c(1) assessment of outcome; (2) was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur; (3) adequacy of follow up of cohorts.