Skip to main content

Table 2 Points awarded by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to the four studies on hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) and heart rate variability (HRV)

From: Severity of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy and heart rate variability in neonates: a systematic review

 

Selection

Comparability

Outcome

Quality scorei

Representativeness of exposed cohorta

Selection of non-exposed cohortb

Ascertainment of exposurec

Presences of outcome of interestd

Comparability of cohortse

Assessment of outcomef

Long enough follow-upg

Adequacy of follow uph

Aliefendioglu et al. 2012, Turkey [19]

A (✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

A, B (✹✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

Good quality

Vergales et al. 2013, USA [20]

A (✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

B (✹)

B (✹)

A (✹)

C

Good quality

Goulding et al. 2015, Ireland [21]

A (✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

B (✹)

B (✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

Good quality

Goulding et al. 2017, Ireland [22]

A (✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

B (✹)

B (✹)

A (✹)

A (✹)

Good quality

  1. a A, truly representative; B, somewhat representative; C, selected group; D, no description of the derivation of the cohort
  2. b A, drawn from the community as the exposed cohort; B, drawn from a different source; C, no description of the derivation of the non-exposed cohort
  3. c A, secure record (e.g., surgical records); B, structured interview; C, written self-report; D, no description
  4. d Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study: A, yes; B, no.
  5. e Comparability of cohorts based of the design or analysis: A, study controls for the most important factor (malformation); B, study controls for any additional factor (infections, metabolic diseases, gender, birth weight, gestational age, postnatal age, therapeutic hypothermia, and medication)
  6. f A, independent blind assessment; B, record linkage; C, self-report; D, no description
  7. g Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? A, yes; B, no.
  8. h A, complete follow-up - all subjects were accounted for; B, subjects lost to follow-up were unlikely to introduce bias - small numbers were lost (< 5%) or description was provided of those lost; C, follow-up rate < 95%, and there was no description of those lost; D, no statement
  9. I ‘Good quality’ was given 3–4 points (✹) in selection and 1–2 points in comparability and 2–3 points in outcome; ‘fair quality’ was given 2 points in selection and 1–2 points in comparability and 2–3 points in outcome; and ‘poor quality’ was given 0–1 points in selection or 0 points in comparability or 0–1 points in outcome