Study | Country | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Total |
|---|
S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | C1 | C2 | O1 | O2 | O3 |
|---|
Liu et al. [14] | China | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | | | ★ | ★ | ★ | 7 |
Bozkurt et al.[17] | Turkey | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | | | ★ | ★ | ★ | 7 |
Teleb et al.[27] | Egypt | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | | | ★ | ★ | ★ | 7 |
- Guidelines for review
- Selection
- S1, Representativeness of the exposed cohort; ★a) representative of the community (e.g. community-based colorectal cancer-screening programme or registry) or (single hospital or clinic); b) selected group of people (e.g. nurses, volunteers); d) no description of the derivation of the cohort
- S2, Selection of the non-exposed cohort: ★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
- S3, Ascertainment of exposure: ★ a) secure record (eg medical records); ★b) structured interview; c) written self-report; d) no description
- S4, Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study: ★ a)yes; b) no
- Comparability
- C1, ★ Study controls for one most important factor;
- C2, ★ Study controls for any additional factors (1 > additional factors)
- Outcome
- O1, Assessment of outcome: ★a) independent blind assessment; ★b) record linkage; c) self-report; d) no description
- O2, Follow-up was long enough for outcomes to occur (after delivery or longer): ★a) yes; b) no
- O3, Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts: a) complete follow up—all subjects accounted for; b) subjects lost to follow up unlikely to introduce bias—small number lost > 10%; c) follow up rate < 90% and no description of those lost; d) no statement
