Skip to main content

Table 5 Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

From: Postoperative complications with neuromuscular blocking drugs and/or reversal agents in obstructive sleep apnea patients: a systematic review

Quality of Included Studies Assessed by Using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Scale for Comparative Studies

 

Study

Study design

Selection (Max = 4 stars)

Comparability (Max = 2Stars)

Outcome (Max = 3Stars)

Total

1

2

3

4

1

1

2

3

 

A*

B*

C

D

A*

B

C

A*

B*

C

D

A*

B

A*

B*

A*

B*

C

D

A*

B

A*

B*

C

D

 

Ahmed [30] 2009

Prospective Cohort

    

*

  

*

   

*

       

*

 

*

   

5

Pereira [31] 2013

Prospective Cohort

 

*

  

*

   

*

  

*

    

*

  

*

 

*

   

7

Llaurado [34] 2014

Prospective Cohort

    

*

      

*

 

*

  

*

  

*

 

*

   

6

  1. Questions marked with asterisk that are fulfilled will award the study one star; fulfillment of non-asterisked columns awards no stars
  2. Selection
  3. 1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort:
  4. A) truly representative of the average population; B) somewhat representative of the average population; C) selected group of users; D) no description of the derivation of the cohort
  5. 2) Selection of the non-exposed cohort:
  6. A) drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort; B) drawn from a different source; C) no description of the derivation of the non-exposed cohort;
  7. 3) Ascertainment of exposure:
  8. A) secure record; B) structured interview; C) written self-report; D) no description
  9. 4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study:
  10. A) yes; B) no
  11. Comparability
  12. 1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis:
  13. A) study controls for cohort__; B) study controls for any additional factor
  14. Outcome
  15. 1) Assessment of outcome:
  16. A) independent blind assessment; B) record linkage; C) self-report; D) no description
  17. 2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur
  18. A) yes (select an adequate follow up period for outcome of interest); B) no
  19. 3) Adequacy of follow up of cohorts
  20. A) complete follow up - all subjects accounted for; B) subjects lost to follow up unlikely to introduce bias; C) follow up rate is adequate and no description of those lost; D) no statement
  21. Scoring algorithm*

    Quality rating

    # Points in Selection Domain

    # Points in Comparability Domain

    # Points in Outcome Domain

    Good

    ≥3

    ≥2

    ≥2

    Fair

    2

    ≥1

    ≥2

    Poor

    0-1

    0

    0-1

Back to article page

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us