Table 1: Results of quality assessment

using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for all studies.

Study

Type

of study

Selection

Comparability

Exposure

or results

Methodological

quality

Ioscovich A

(2023)

Cases and

controls

4

2

3

Good

Hao Z

(2016)

Cases and

controls

4

1

3

Good

Zeng C

(2017)

Cases and

controls

3

1

1

Regular

Filho S

(2019)

Retrospective

cohort

4

1

3

Good

Huo F

(2021)

Retrospective

cohort

4

1

2

Good

Kaneda H

(2017)

Cases and

controls

4

1

2

Good

Kyozuka H

(2023)

Retrospective

cohort

4

1

3

Good

Papillon-

Smith J

(2020)

Retrospective

cohort

4

1

3

Good

Ye Y

(2023)

Retrospective

cohort

4

1

3

Good

Wu Q

(2016)

Retrospective

cohort

4

1

3

Good

Peng W

(2020)

Retrospective

cohort

2

1

2

Regular

Zhao X

(2016)

Cases and

controls

4

2

2

Good

Duan X

(2018)

Retrospective

cohort

3

1

2

Good

Wang Y

(2020)

Retrospective

cohort

4

1

3

Good

Peng Y

(2020)

Cases and

controls

4

2

3

Good

Zhao Z

(2020)

Prospective

cohort

3

1

2

Good

Zangh Y

(2018)

Retrospective

cohort

4

1

3

Good

Good: 3 to 4 stars for selection, 1 to 2 for comparability,

and 2 to 3 for results/exhibition;

Fair: 2 stars in selection, 1 to 2 in comparability and 2 to 3 in results/exhibition;

Bad: 0 to 1 on selection, 0 on comparability and 0 to 1 on results/exposure.