Table 2 The quality assessment according to the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS) of each study
From: The effectiveness of TDF versus ETV on incidence of HCC in CHB patients: a meta analysis
| Â | References | Koklu,(2013) [14] | Goyal(2015) [15] | Choi(2017) [16] | Tsai(2017) [17] | Kim,B.G(2018) [19] | Kim,Y.M(2018) [18] | Yu(2018) [20] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Selection | Reprensentativeness of the exposed cohort | 1 | 1 | unclear | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Selection of the non-exposed cohort | 1 | 1 | unclear | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Ascertainment of exposure | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of study | – | 1 | unclear | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | |
Comparibility | Study controls for age or gender | 1 | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | – |
Study controls for any additional factor | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Outcome | Assessment of outcome | 1 | 1 | unclear | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur | – | 1 | – | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Adequacy of follow-up of cohort | 1 | 1 | unclear | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Â | Total | 7 | 9 | unclear | 7 | 9 | 8 | 8 |