Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality assessment of observational studies based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

From: Comparing clinical outcomes of piperacillin-tazobactam administration and dosage strategies in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

StudySelectionComparabilityOutcomeScore
 ABCDEFGH 
Grant 2002 [13] (p)*********9*
Lodise 2007 [16] (R)*********9*
Lorente 2009 [18] (R)*********9*
Rose 2011 [35] (R)*********9*
Yost 2011 [21] (R)********8*
Pereira 2012 [23] (R)*********9*
Lee 2012 [24] (R)********8*
Waxier 2012 [25] (R)********8*
Cutro 2014 [27] (R)********8*
Schmees 2016 [31] (R)********8*
Winstead 2016 [30] (R)********8*
Fan 2017 [34] (P)********8*
  1. (P) = prospective cohort study and (R) = retrospective cohort study
  2. Selection:
  3. A: representation of the exposed cohort (yes = *) (no = −), B: selection of non-exposed cohort (yes = *) (no = −), C: ascertainment of exposure (yes = *) (no = −), D: demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study (yes = *) (no = −)
  4. Comparability:
  5. E: comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis [controls for: age, sex and marital status (yes = *) (no = −) and for other factors (yes = *) (no = −)]
  6. Outcome:
  7. F: assessment of outcome (yes = *) (no = −), G: was follow up long enough for outcome to occur (yes = *) (no = −) and H: adequacy of follow up of cohorts (yes = *) (no = −).