Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality assessment of eligible studies using the Newcastle Ottawa quality assessment scale

From: Prognostic value of TP53 concurrent mutations for EGFR- TKIs and ALK-TKIs based targeted therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis

Study

Selectiona

Comparabilityb

Outcomec

Total (quality) scored

Quality

Ref

CLCGP

4

2

2

8

High

[26]

Molina-Vila

4

1

2

7

High

[27]

Bria E

3

2

3

8

High

[42]

Canale M

2

2

3

7

High

[44]

Labbé C

3

2

3

8

High

[33]

VanderLaan

3

1

2

6

Medium

[28]

Aisner

3

2

3

8

High

[25]

Tsui DWY

3

2

2

7

High

[40]

Helena A.Yu

3

2

3

8

High

[48]

Kim Y

4

2

3

9

High

[43]

Rachiglio AM

4

2

2

8

High

[34]

Kron A

4

2

1

7

High

[45]

Yu Y

3

2

3

8

High

[46]

Christopoulos P

3

2

3

8

High

[41]

Song P

4

2

3

9

High

[47]

  1. Selectiona, graded based on 4 items as follows: firstly, representativeness of the exposed cohort (0 points, selected group of users, or no description of the derivation of the cohort;1 point, truly or somewhat representative of the average level in the community); secondly, selection of the non-exposed cohort (0 point, drawn from a different source or no description of the derivation of the non-exposed cohort; 1 point, drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort); thirdly, ascertainment of exposure (0 point, written self-report or no description; 1 point, secure record or structured interview); fourthly, demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study (0 point, no;1 point, yes). Comparabilityb, graded as 0–2 points (0 point, study controls without the most important factor or any additional factor; 1 point, study controls for the most important factor or any additional factor; 0 points, study controls for the most important factor and any additional factor). Outcomec, graded based on 3 items: firstly, assessment of outcome (1point, independent blind assessment or record linkage; 0 point, self-report or no description); secondly, was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? (1 point, yes; 0 point, no); thirdly, adequacy of follow-up of cohorts (1point, complete follow-up or subjects lost to follow-up unlikely to introduce bias; 0 point, follow-up rate < 80% and no description of those lost, or no statement)