Skip to main content

Table 2 Newcastle-Ottawa score[6]for the cohort studies included in the systematic review

From: Effect of thromboelastography (TEG®) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) on diagnosis of coagulopathy, transfusion guidance and mortality in trauma: descriptive systematic review

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 duration

Loss to follow-up

Total score

Kaufmann 1997 [9]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Watts 1998 [10]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Schreiber 2005 [11]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Rugeri 2007 [12]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Nekdulov 2007 [13]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Levrat 2008 [14]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Park 2008 [57]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Plotkin 2008 [15]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Carroll 2009 [16]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Jeger 2009 [17]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Kashuk 2009 [49]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Kashuk 2009 [18]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Park 2009 [19]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Schöchl 2009 [58]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Doran 2010 [20]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

-

5/9

Kashuk 2010 [21]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Leemann 2010 [22]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Schochl 2010 [59]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Schochl 2011 [23]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Watters 2010 [24]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Cotton 2011 [25]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Davenport 2011 [26]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Davenport 2011 [50]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

-

5/9

Differding 2011 [27]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Jansen 2011 [28]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Nystrup 2011 [29]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Ostrowski 2011 [30]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Schöchl 2011 [51]

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

8/9

Schöchl 2011 [31]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Tauber 2011 [32]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Theusinger 2011 [60]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Cotton 2012 [33]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Cotton 2012 [34]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Davis 2013 [61]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Holcomb 2012 [35]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Ives 2012 [36]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Jeger 2012 [52]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Kashuk 2012 [37]

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

8/9

Kunio 2012 [62]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Kutcher 2012 [38]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Nascimento 2012 [39]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Ostrowski 2012 [53]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Pezold 2012 [54]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Raza 2013 [55]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Rourke 2012 [40]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Wohlauer 2012 [41]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Woolley 2013 [42]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Chapman 2013 [43]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Chapman 2013 [56]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Harr 2013 [44]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Johansson 2013 [45]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Lee 2013 [46]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Tapia 2013 [63]

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

8/9

Kornblith 2014 [47]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

Branco 2014 [48]

*

-

*

*

-

*

*

*

6/9

  1. Refer to reference [7] 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 nonexposed 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 by using TEG®/ROTEM®; we considered a non-exposed cohort to be one that was managed without TEG®/ROTEM®; several other studies [12],[13],[19],[24],[27],[32],[41],[42],[44],[60],[61] used healthy or other hospitalized controls to examine associations between TEG®/ROTEM® abnormalities and outcomes. 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 was 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.