Table 6 Critical appraisal result of the studies using cohort study design

Included articles	Criterion no. (items included to appraise cohort studies)
Included articles	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	Total	Raw %	Risk
(Brouwers et al.⁶¹)	*	X	√	*	*	√	√	√	√	√	√	7	63.6	Moderate
(Cené et al.⁴³)	√	*	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	10	90.9	Low
(Checa et al.⁵¹)	√	√	√	*	*	√	√	√	√	√	√	9	81.8	Low
(Cené et al.⁴²)	√	√	√	*	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	10	90.9	Low
(Coyte et al.³⁷)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	11	100	Low
(Liang et al.¹⁸)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	11	100	Low
(Manemann et al.⁴⁷)	√	√	√	X	*	√	√	√	√	√	√	9	81.8	Low
(Murberg³⁴)	√	√	√	X	*	*	√	√	√	√	√	8	72.7	Low
(Savitz et al.⁴⁸)	√	√	√	*	*	√	√	√	√	√	√	8	81.8	Low
(Spaderna et al.³⁵)	√	√	X	*	*	√	√	√	√	√	√	8	72.7	Low
(Sterling et al.³⁶)	√	√	*	*	*	√	√	√	√	√	√	8	72.7	Low
(Yang et al.³⁹)	√	√	X	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	10	90.9	Low
(Saito et al.⁴¹)	√	√	√	*	*	√	√	X	√	√	√	8	72.7	Low
(Keyes et al.⁴⁹)	√	√	X	X	X	√	√	√	*	√	√	7	63.6	Moderate
(Löfvenmark et al.⁵⁷)	√	√	√	*	*	√	√	√	√	√	√	9	81.8	Low
(Kitakata et al.⁴⁰)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	X	*	*	√	8	72.7	Low
(Yildirim et al.⁶⁰)	√	√	√	√	*	√	√	X	*	*	√	7	63.6	Moderate

√ = yes, X = no, * = unclear, ¥ = not applicable
Criterion No. 1: Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population? No. 2: Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups? No. 3: Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? No. 4: Were confounding factors identified? No. 5: Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? No. 6: Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)? No. 7: Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? No. 8: Was the follow up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur? No 9: Was follow up complete, and if not, were the reasons to loss to follow up described and explored? No. 10: Were strategies to address incomplete follow up utilized? No. 11: Was appropriate statistical analysis used?

Search