Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality Assessment of Included Cohort Studies Using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

From: Distal locked versus unlocked intramedullary nailing for stable intertrochanteric fractures, a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author Selection Comparability Outcome
Representativeness of Exposed Cohort Selection of Non-Exposed Cohort Ascertainment of Exposure Demonstration That Outcome of Interest Was Not Present at Start of Study Adjust for fracture type Adjust for other fracture risk factors Assessment of outcome Follow-up > 1 year Loss to follow-up rate Total Quality Score
Lanzetti RM. 2018 [5] 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8
Skala-Rosenbaum, 2010 [6] 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 8
Skala-Rosenbaum,2016 [7] 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 7
Vopat BG, 2014 [8] 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 7
Yun, Ho Hyun, 2015 [9] 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 7
  1. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa scale. A study can be awarded a maximum of one star for each numbered item within the Selection and Outcome categories and a maximum of two stars for Comparability
  2. Selection: 1) Representativeness of exposed cohort: 1, study population truly or somewhat representative of a community/ population based study; 0, study population was sampled from a special population, that is, population from a company, hospital patients, data from the health insurance company or health examination organization, nurses
  3. 2) Selection of non-exposed cohort: 1, drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort
  4. 3) Ascertainment of exposure: 1, Validation of macrolides use with secure medical record; 0, no specific macrolides use validation method
  5. 4) Demonstration that outcome was not present at start of study: 1, exclusion of participants with a history of severe ventricular arrhythmia or sudden cardiac arrest at the beginning of the study
  6. Comparability: 1) 1, whether a study adjusted for fracture type deliberately; 1, whether a study adjusted for other risk factors
  7. Outcome: 1) Assessment of outcome: 1, events were confirmed by medical records or record linkage; 0, self-reported
  8. 2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur: 1, duration of follow-up > = 1 year; 0, if duration of follow-up < 1 year
  9. 3) Loss to follow-up rate: 1, complete follow-up or loss to follow up rate < =20%; 0, follow-up rate < 80% or no description of those lost