Table 3 The risk of bias of included studies based on the Newcastle–Ottawa scale
Newcastle–Ottawa criteria | Studies, year | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ariga, 2017 [16] | Attia, 2018 [17] | Bodard, 2008 [18] | Bodard, 2015 [19] | Burgess, 2016 [20] | Ch'ng, 2014 [21] | Chiapasco, 2006 [22] | De Santis, 2006 [23] | Gbara, 2007 [24] | Goker, 2020 [25] | Khadembaschi, 2020 [14] | Kniha, 2017 [26] | Lodders, 2021 [12] | Lodders, 2022 [26] | Menapace, 2018 [27] | Parbo, 2013 [13] | Pellegrino, 2018 [28] | Zweifel, 2018 [29] | |
A. Selection (maximum of four stars) | ||||||||||||||||||
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. Comparability (maximum of two stars) | ||||||||||||||||||
1. Comparability of cohort on the basis of the design or analysis | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | ★☆ | ★☆ | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | ☆☆ | ★☆ | ★☆ | ★☆ | ★☆ | ★☆ | ★☆ | ☆☆ | ★☆ | ★★ |
C. Outcome (maximum of three stars) | ||||||||||||||||||
1. Assessment of outcome | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ☆ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ☆ | ★ | ★ |
2. Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ☆ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ☆ | ★ | ★ | ☆ | ★ | ☆ | ★ |
3. Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ |
Total (maximum of nine stars) | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 9 |