Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of quality appraisal with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale

From: The effects of recreational cannabis use on glycemic outcomes and self-management behaviours in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a rapid review

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