Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of risk of bias assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias tool for cohort studies

From: Effectiveness of implementation strategies for clinical guidelines to community pharmacy: a systematic review

 

De Almeida Neto, A.C. 2001 Study 5

De Almeida Neto, A.C. 2001 Study 5A

Egen, V. 2003

Guirguis, L.M. 2007

Koster, E.S. 2014

Martin, B.A. 2010

Puumalainen, I. 2005

Thornley, T. 2006

Selection

Representativeness of the exposed cohort

–

–

*

–

–

–

*

*

Selection of the non-exposed cohort

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Ascertainment of the exposure

*

*

*

–

*

–

–

*

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

*

*

*

–

*

*

–

–

Comparability

Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis

        

Outcome

Assessment of outcome

*

*

*

–

*

–

–

*

Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur

–

–

*

*

*

*

–

–

Adequacy of follow-up cohorts

–

–

*

–

–

–

–

–

  1. Reference: Newcastle-Ottowa Quality Assessment Scale
  2. NB, where interventions were directed to more than one group; analysis was only for the component that related to community pharmacy
  3. Key
  4. Based on a star system (*) with a range of 0 to 9 stars possible. Three domains are tested:
  5. 1. Selection of study groups (up to one star allowed for each item)
  6. 2. Comparability of the groups (up to two stars allowed)
  7. 3. Outcomes (up to one star allowed for each item)