Skip to main content

Table 4 Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) for studies included in the systematic review

From: A systematic review of the association between dietary patterns and health-related quality of life

Author name Study design Selection Comparability Outcome  
Representativeness of the sample Sample size Non-respondents Ascertainment of the exposure Assessment of the outcome Statistical test Final score
Galilea-Zabalza et al. [36] Cross-sectional * * * * ** * 8
Bonaccio et al. [35] Cross-sectional * * * * ** ** * 9
Milte et al. [46] Cross-sectional * * * * ** ** * 9
Alcubierre et al. [34] Cross-sectional * * - * * ** * 7
Holmes et al. [22] Cross-sectional * * - - * ** * 6
Kim et al. [17] Cross-sectional * * * * ** ** * 9
Zaragoza-Marti et al. [45] Cross-sectional * * - * * * * 6
Moravejolahkami et al. [47] Cross-sectional * * * * ** ** * 9
Mozzillo et al. [21] Cross-sectional * * * * ** ** * 9
Author name Study design Selection Comparability Outcome
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 Assessment of outcome Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur Adequacy of follow up of cohorts Final score
Ruano et al. [28] Cohort * * * * ** * * * 9
Perez-Tasigchana et al. [23] Cohort * * * * ** * * * 9
Perez-Tasigchana et al. [23] Cohort * * * * ** * * * 9
Gigic et al. [27] Longitudinal * * * * ** * * * 9
Sanchez-Aguadero et al. [44] Longitudinal * * * * ** * * * 9
  1. One star represents a score of 1, and a study can be awarded a maximum score of 9 in total. The items were scored “*”if the answer was “YES,” and “−” if the answer was “NO” or “UNCLEAR.” The final quality scores were as follows: low quality = 0–3; moderate quality = 4–6; high quality ≥ 7