Table 2.
Quality assessment of the reviewed articles
| Study | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holguin (2005) [15] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Divo (2012) [16] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Baty (2013) [17] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Miller (2013) [18] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Echave-Sustaeta (2014) [19] | Y | Y | Y | NR | Y | Y | NR | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Regular |
| Ongel (2014) [20] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Diez-Manglano (2014) [21] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Koskela (2014) [22] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Divo (2014) [23] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y | Good |
| Dal Negro (2015) [24] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Battaglia (2015) [25] | Y | Y | Y | NR | Y | Y | NR | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Regular |
| Mannino (2015) [26] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Caram (2016) [27] | Y | Y | Y | NR | Y | Y | NR | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Regular |
| Jeong (2016) [28] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Deniz (2016) [29] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Liao (2016) [30] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Westerik (2017) [31] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Schwab (2017) [32] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Divo (2018) [33] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
| Maselli (2019) [11] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y | Good |
1. Was the research question or objective in this article clearly stated?
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined?
3. Was the participation rate of the eligible people or at least 50% of them?
4. Have all subjects been selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same period of time)? Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study pre-specified and applied uniformly to all the participants?
5. Has a sample size justification, description of potency or variation, and effect estimates been provided?
6. For the analyses in this article, were the exposure(s) of interest measured before the result(s) to be quantified?
7. Was the time enough to reasonably expect an association between exposure and outcome if it existed?
8. For exposures that may vary in quantity or level, did the study examine different levels of exposure as related to the outcome (for example, categories of exposure or exposure measured as a continuous variable)?
9. Were exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently in all study participants?
10. Has the exposure(s) been evaluated more than once through the period of time presented?
11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently in all the study participants?
12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the participants' exposure status?
13. Was the loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less than that?
14. Were the main confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and result(s)?
Y: yes; N: no; CD: can’t determine; NA: not applicable; NR: not reported.