Skip to main content

Table 2 The Newcastle Ottawa scale for the cohort studies included in the review

From: A systematic review on the rotational thrombelastometry (ROTEM®) values for the diagnosis of coagulopathy, prediction and guidance of blood transfusion and prediction of mortality in trauma patients

Reference

Representativeness of the exposed cohort

Selection of non-exposed cohort

Ascertainment of exposure

Outcome not present at start

Comparability of controls

Assessment of outcome

Adequate follow up

Loss to follow up

Total score

Rugeri 2007 [36]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Levrat 2008 [37]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Schöchl 2009 [26]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Doran 2010 [25]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

-

5/9

Leemann 2010 [38]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Schochl 2010 [27]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Tauber 2011 [40]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Schochl 2010 [39]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Davenport 2011 [41]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Schöchl 2011 [28]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Rourke 2012 [42]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Woolley 2012 [30]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Hagemo 2015 [43]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

  1. Legend: Refer to http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp, for a description of Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies. In general, more stars denote higher quality. ‘Representativeness’ is awarded a star if the cohort is truly or somewhat representative of the population of interest. For selection of the non-exposed cohort, a star is awarded if it is drawn from the same population as the exposed cohort. The relevant exposure in this review is management using ROTEM®; we considered a non-exposed cohort to be one that was managed without ROTEM®; other studies used healthy or other hospitalized controls to examine associations between ROTEM® abnormalities and outcomes [30, 36, 40]. Exposure is satisfactorily ascertained if data are collected from a secure record. A star is awarded if the outcome is not present at the start of the study. A maximum of two stars can be given for ‘Comparability of controls’ for controlling of confounders in either the design (matching) or analysis (statistical adjustment) phase. We also gave one star when selection criteria appeared to create comparable groups via restriction. ‘Assessment of outcome’ is awarded a star if the outcomes were assessed by independent blind assessment or record linkage; we also considered the outcome of mortality to be adequately assessed in all studies reporting it due to low risk of bias. The duration of follow-up was considered adequate if it was long enough for the outcomes to occur. Completeness of follow-up was considered adequate if all patients were accounted for or if the number lost to follow-up was sufficiently low to be unlikely to introduce bias