|
Study year
|
Quality indicators from the Newcastle-Ottawa scale
|
Score
|
|---|
|
Selection
|
Comparable
|
Outcome assessment
|
|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|---|
|
Blach (26) 2009
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
| | | |
*
|
*
|
6
|
|
Kshirsagar (15) 2009
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
| |
*
|
8
|
|
Chen (16) 2011
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
| |
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
8
|
|
Souza (24) 2014
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
| |
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
8
|
|
Palmer (28) 2015
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
| | |
*
| | |
5
|
|
Ricardo (14) 2015
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
| | |
*
|
*
|
*
|
7
|
|
Chen (27) 2015
| |
*
|
*
|
*
| |
*
|
*
| |
*
|
6
|
|
Ruokonen (25) 2016
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
| |
*
|
*
|
*
|
*
|
8
|
- Footnote: For cohort studies, 1 indicates exposed cohort truly representative; 2, non-exposed cohort drawn from the same community; 3, ascertainment of exposure; 4, outcome of interest not present at start; 5, cohorts comparable on basis of age; 6, cohorts comparable on other factor(s); 7, quality of outcome assessment; 8, follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur; and 9, complete accounting for cohorts. Each asterisk represents one star in the Newcastle-Ottawa scale system. The maximum number of stars is 2 for comparability and 1 for each of the other categories, for a total of up to 10 stars
