Table 3. Open in new tab...

	Questions evaluated
2	Hasselbalch et al (2010)²⁴	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
3	Taylor et al (2011)²⁵	Yes	NR	Yes	No	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	5/9 (55.56%)	Fair
4	Corella et al (2012)²⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	8/10 (80%)	Good
9	Katsuura-Kamano et al (2014)³¹	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
11	Khalilitehrani et al (2015)¹⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
12	Yilmaz et al (2015)³³	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
13	Lauria et al (2016)³⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	10/10 (100%)	Good
14	Park et al (2016)¹⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
15	Obregon et al (2017)³⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	No	7/10 (70%)	Fair
16	Martins et al (2018)³⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	11/11 (100%)	Good
17	Meng et al (2018)³⁷	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	10/11 (90.91%)	Good
18	Adamska-Patruno et al (2019)³⁸	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
24	Raskiliene et al (2021)¹²	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	No	Yes	9/11 (81.82%)	Good
25	Alizadeh et al (2022)⁴⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	8/10 (80%)	Good
26	Rahati et al (2022)¹³	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
27	Nacis et al (2022)⁴⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	No	6/10 (60%)	Fair
28	Zarei et al (2022)⁴⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair

Questions evaluated

Code

Study (year)

Total score^a

Quality rating

Hasselbalch et al (2010)²⁴

Yes

6/9 (66.67%)

Fair

Taylor et al (2011)²⁵

Yes

5/9 (55.56%)

Fair

Corella et al (2012)²⁶

Yes

8/10 (80%)

Good

Katsuura-Kamano et al (2014)³¹

Yes

6/9 (66.67%)

Fair

Khalilitehrani et al (2015)¹⁴

Yes

6/9 (66.67%)

Fair

Yilmaz et al (2015)³³

Yes

7/10 (70%)

Fair

Lauria et al (2016)³⁴

Yes

10/10 (100%)

Good

Park et al (2016)¹⁵

Yes

7/10 (70%)

Fair

Obregon et al (2017)³⁵

Yes

7/10 (70%)

Fair

Martins et al (2018)³⁶

Yes

11/11 (100%)

Good

Meng et al (2018)³⁷

Yes

10/11 (90.91%)

Good

Adamska-Patruno et al (2019)³⁸

Yes

6/9 (66.67%)

Fair

Raskiliene et al (2021)¹²

Yes

9/11 (81.82%)

Good

Alizadeh et al (2022)⁴⁴

Yes

8/10 (80%)

Good

Rahati et al (2022)¹³

Yes

7/10 (70%)

Fair

Nacis et al (2022)⁴⁵

Yes

6/10 (60%)

Fair

Zarei et al (2022)⁴⁶

Yes

7/10 (70%)

Fair

	Questions evaluated
2	Hasselbalch et al (2010)²⁴	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
3	Taylor et al (2011)²⁵	Yes	NR	Yes	No	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	5/9 (55.56%)	Fair
4	Corella et al (2012)²⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	8/10 (80%)	Good
9	Katsuura-Kamano et al (2014)³¹	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
11	Khalilitehrani et al (2015)¹⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
12	Yilmaz et al (2015)³³	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
13	Lauria et al (2016)³⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	10/10 (100%)	Good
14	Park et al (2016)¹⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
15	Obregon et al (2017)³⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	No	7/10 (70%)	Fair
16	Martins et al (2018)³⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	11/11 (100%)	Good
17	Meng et al (2018)³⁷	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	10/11 (90.91%)	Good
18	Adamska-Patruno et al (2019)³⁸	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
24	Raskiliene et al (2021)¹²	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	No	Yes	9/11 (81.82%)	Good
25	Alizadeh et al (2022)⁴⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	8/10 (80%)	Good
26	Rahati et al (2022)¹³	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
27	Nacis et al (2022)⁴⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	No	6/10 (60%)	Fair
28	Zarei et al (2022)⁴⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair

Table 3.

Open in new tab

Quality-Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-sectional Studies

Code	Study (year)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	Total score^a	Quality rating
		Questions evaluated
2	Hasselbalch et al (2010)²⁴	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
3	Taylor et al (2011)²⁵	Yes	NR	Yes	No	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	5/9 (55.56%)	Fair
4	Corella et al (2012)²⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	8/10 (80%)	Good
9	Katsuura-Kamano et al (2014)³¹	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
11	Khalilitehrani et al (2015)¹⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
12	Yilmaz et al (2015)³³	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
13	Lauria et al (2016)³⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	10/10 (100%)	Good
14	Park et al (2016)¹⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
15	Obregon et al (2017)³⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	No	7/10 (70%)	Fair
16	Martins et al (2018)³⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	11/11 (100%)	Good
17	Meng et al (2018)³⁷	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	10/11 (90.91%)	Good
18	Adamska-Patruno et al (2019)³⁸	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
24	Raskiliene et al (2021)¹²	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	No	Yes	9/11 (81.82%)	Good
25	Alizadeh et al (2022)⁴⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	8/10 (80%)	Good
26	Rahati et al (2022)¹³	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
27	Nacis et al (2022)⁴⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	No	6/10 (60%)	Fair
28	Zarei et al (2022)⁴⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair

Code	Study (year)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	Total score^a	Quality rating
		Questions evaluated
2	Hasselbalch et al (2010)²⁴	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
3	Taylor et al (2011)²⁵	Yes	NR	Yes	No	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	5/9 (55.56%)	Fair
4	Corella et al (2012)²⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	8/10 (80%)	Good
9	Katsuura-Kamano et al (2014)³¹	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
11	Khalilitehrani et al (2015)¹⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
12	Yilmaz et al (2015)³³	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
13	Lauria et al (2016)³⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	10/10 (100%)	Good
14	Park et al (2016)¹⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
15	Obregon et al (2017)³⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	No	7/10 (70%)	Fair
16	Martins et al (2018)³⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	11/11 (100%)	Good
17	Meng et al (2018)³⁷	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	Yes	10/11 (90.91%)	Good
18	Adamska-Patruno et al (2019)³⁸	Yes	NR	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	6/9 (66.67%)	Fair
24	Raskiliene et al (2021)¹²	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	No	Yes	9/11 (81.82%)	Good
25	Alizadeh et al (2022)⁴⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	8/10 (80%)	Good
26	Rahati et al (2022)¹³	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair
27	Nacis et al (2022)⁴⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	No	6/10 (60%)	Fair
28	Zarei et al (2022)⁴⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	NA	Yes	NA	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	7/10 (70%)	Fair

Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; NR, not reported.

Total score: number of “yes.” Quality rating: poor <50%; fair: 50%–75%; good >75%.

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only