Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 8;1(11):1244–1253. doi: 10.34067/KID.0004052020

Table 2.

Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for quality assessment of nonrandomized studies

Study Design Selection Comparability Outcome Total Points
S1 S2 S3 S4 C1 C2 O1 O2 O3
Friend et al. (15) Retrospective cohort 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8
Rasgon et al. (16) Prospective cohort 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 5
Wingard et al. (17) Prospective cohort 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8
Souqiyyeh et al. (18) Retrospective cohort 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 3
Hanko et al. (19) Retrospective cohort 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8
Lacson et al. (20) Prospective cohort 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8
Ghaffari (21) Prospective cohort 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 6
Wilson et al. (22) Retrospective cohort 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 8
Yu et al. (23) Retrospective cohort 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4
Gill et al. (24) Retrospective cohort 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Schanz et al. (25) Retrospective cohort 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 6

For quality assessment, >7 points is considered “high quality.” S1, representativeness of exposed cohort; S2, selection of controls; S3, ascertainment of exposure; S4, outcome not present at start of study; C1/C2, design/analysis controls for important factors; O1, assessment of outcomes; O2, follow-up duration sufficient for outcomes to occur; O3, all subjects accounted for.