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