Table 2 NOS scale for observational studies
Cohort studies | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baseline | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Quality Score | |||||||||||
Study Title | First Author | Year | Study Design (Prospective or retrospective) | mean follow up (months) | Sample (n) (DCB/stent) | Age at baseline mean (Year) (DCB/stent) | Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of the non exposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study | Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis | Assessment of outcome | Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur | Adequacy of follow up of cohorts | Â |
Shin 2016 | Eun-Seok Shin | 2016 | Retrospective cohort | 12.4 | 44/22 | 60.6/58.7 | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | Good (9) |
Silverio 2020 | Angelo Silverio | 2022 | Retrospective cohort | 36 | 1154/13,634 | 68/69 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | Good (9) |
SINAGA 2016 | DASDO ANTONIUS SINAGA | 2016 | Retrospective cohort | 12 | 172/163 | 61/61.2 | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | Good (8) |
Tan 2021 | Qiang Tan | 2021 | Retrospective cohort | 24 | 56/212 | 64.96 /62.39 | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | Good (9) |
Tasi 2022 | Cheng‑Hsuan Tsai | 2022 | Retrospective cohort | 12 | 47/59 | 65.1 // 65.1 | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | Good (9) |
Giannini 2017 | Francesco Giannini | 2017 | Retrospective cohort | 12 | 90/91 | 65/66 | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | Good (9) |
Sim 2018 | Hui Wen Sim | 2018 | Retrospective cohort | 12 | 87/200 | 58/61 | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | Good (9) |