Skip to main content
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics

Table 5 Risk-of-bias assessment of the included prospective cohort studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality assessment Scale

From: Clinical outcomes of contemporary lateral augmentation techniques in primary ACL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reference

Selection

Comparability

Outcome

Overall Quality

Representativeness of the exposed cohort

Selection of the non-exposed cohort

Ascertainment of exposure

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

Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis controlled for confounders

Assessment of outcome

Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur

Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts

Sonnery-Cottet et al. [55]

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Good

Goncharov et al. [15]

/

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Good

Helito et al. [21]

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Good

Helito et al. [22]

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Good

Rowan et al. [50]

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Good

Vadalà et al. [58]

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Good

  1. *: criteria met, / Criteria not met or unable to determine
  2. Good quality: 3 or 4 stars in selection domain AND 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain AND 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain
  3. Fair quality: 2 stars in selection domain AND 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain AND 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain
  4. Poor quality: 0 or 1 star in selection domain OR 0 stars in comparability domain OR 0 or 1 stars in outcome/exposure domain
Back to article page