Skip to main content

Table 3 A table summarising the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale judgements made for the cohort studies included in this review

From: Intra-arterial anaesthetics for pain control in arterial embolisation procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  Hartnell et al. 1999 Katsumori et al. 2020 Molgaard et al. 1990
Selection
 Representativeness of exposed cohort * *  
 Selection of the non-exposed cohort   *  
 Ascertainment of exposure * * *
 Demonstration that outcomes of interest were not present at start of study    *
Comparability
 Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis controlled for confounders (other factors incl. Patient demographics, severity of disease, embolisation procedure)   **  
Outcome
 Assessment of outcome * * *
 Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur * * *
 Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts * * *
Total Newcastle-Ottawa Score: 5 8 5
AHRQ Judgement: Poor quality Good quality Poor quality
  1. As outlined by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, each study was awarded a maximum of one star for each item within the Selection and Outcome categories. A maximum of two stars was given for Comparability. The total number of stars awarded to each study was translated to a qualitative judgement using conversion thresholds developed by The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality