Skip to main content

Table 2 Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment form for cohort studies

From: A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications of artificial urinary sphincters in female patients with urinary incontinence due to internal sphincter insufficiency

Study identification

DOP

Selection

Comparability

Outcome

9. Overall score

1. Representativness of the exposed cohort

2. Selection of the non-exposed cohort

3. Ascertainment of exposure

4. Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study

5. Comprability of cohort on the basis of the design or analysis

6. Assessment of outcome

7. Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur

8. Adequacy of follow up of cohorts

Gondran-Tellier [1]

2019

a

c

a

a

a

c

a

a

6

Fournierg [2]

2014

c

c

a

a

a

c

a

a

5

Ngninkcj [3]

2005

d

c

a

a

c

d

a

a

4

Peyronnet [4]

2018

a

c

a

a

c

a

a

a

6

Phé [5]

2014

a

c

a

a

c

d

a

a

5

Rouprêt [6]

2009

a

c

a

a

c

d

a

a

5

Tricard [7]

2019

a

c

a

a

c

d

a

a

5

Vayleux [8]

2011

a

c

a

a

c

d

a

a

5

George [9]

1992

a

c

a

a

c

d

a

a

5

Biardeau [10]

2015

c

c

a

a

a

c

a

a

5

Bracchitta [11]

2019

a

c

a

a

a

c

a

a

6

Broudeur [12]

2021

a

c

a

a

a

c

a

a

6

Chung [13]

2010

a

c

a

a

a

d

a

a

6

Chung [14]

2010

a

c

a

a

a

c

a

a

6

Costa [15]

2001

a

c

a

a

a

a

a

a

7

Denormandie [16]

2021

b

c

a

a

a

c

a

a

5

Diokno []

1987

a

c

a

a

a

c

a

a

6