Table 4 Results of quality appraisal with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale
Cross-sectional studies (n = 4) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
First author, year | Is the sample definition adequate? | Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Assessment of outcome | Adequacy of response rate | |||
Akturk, 2019 [21] | B–records/self-report | B–somewhat representative | C–written self-report | A–independent or blind | C–inadequate | |||
Hogendorf, 2016 [23] Thurheimer-Cacciotti, 2017 [24] | B–records/self-report | B–somewhat representative | C–written self-report | C–self-report | B–small number lost | |||
C–no description | C–selected group | D–no description | C–self-report | Unclear | ||||
Wisk, 2018 [26] | B–records/self-report | B–somewhat representative | C–written self-report | C–self-report | D–no description | |||
Case-control studies (n = 1) | ||||||||
First author, year | Is the case definition adequate? | Representativeness of the cases | Selection of controls | Definition of controls | Comparability of cases and controls | Ascertainment of exposure | Same method for cases and controls | Non-response rate |
Winhusen, 2018 [25] | B–records/self-report | A–consecutive or representative | B–hospital | A–no history | A–age and other factor | A–secure record | A–yes | Unclear |
Cohort studies (n = 1) | ||||||||
First author, year | Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of the non-exposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Demonstration outcome was not present at thestart | Comparability of cohorts | Assessment of outcome | Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? | Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts |
Helgeson, 2016 [22] | B–somewhat representative | A–same community | D–no description | A–yes | D–no description | A–independent or blind | A–yes | B–small number lost |