Skip to main content

Table 1 Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale

From: What surgical approach would provide better outcomes in children and adolescents undergoing cholecystectomy? Results of a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author, year Selection (****) Comparability (**) Outcome(***)
Representativeness of the exposed cohort Selection of the non-exposed cohort Ascertainment of exposure Demonstration that the outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis Assessment of outcome Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts
Ainsworth et al., 2010 * * * *   * * *
Al-Salem et al., 1997 * * * * ** * * *
Al-Salem et al., 2012 * * * * ** * * *
Chabchoub et al., 2010 * * * * ** * * *
Dumont et al., 1999 * * * * ** * * *
Espinosa-Saavedra et al., 2014 * * * * ** * * *
Holcomb et al., 1993   * * * ** * * *
Jawad et al., 1998 * * * * ** * * *
Jeanty, 2015 * * * * ** * * *
Kim, 1995 * * * * ** * * *
Lugo-Vicente et al., 1997 * * * * ** * * *
Luks, 1999 * * * * ** * * *
Mahida et al., 2015 * * * * ** * * *
Mehmood et al., 2010 * * * * ** * * *
Miltenburg et al., 2001 * * * * ** * * *
Parez et al., 2001 * * * * ** * * *
Ruangtrakool et al., 2002 * * * * ** * * *
Stringer et al., 2004 * * * * ** * * *
Tannuri et al., 2012 * * * * ** * * *
Ure et al., 1999 * * * * ** * * *
Zeman et al., 2004 * * * * ** * * *
  1. Good quality: 3 or 4 stars in selection domain and 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain and 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain; Fair quality: 2 stars in selection domain and 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain and 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain; Poor quality: 0 or 1 star in selection domain or 0 stars in comparability domain or 0 or 1 stars in outcome/exposure domain