Mortality and Survival after Norwood Procedure Comparison between Shunt Type in Patients with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome or Its Variants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study

Table 4

Quality assessment of selected studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.

ID	Study	S1	S2	S3	S4	C	O1	O2	O3	Total	Quality score
1\2\19\23	One et al., 2021	a	a	a	a		b	a	b	9/9	High quality
3	Kelly et al., 2020	a	a	a	a		b	a	b	8/9	High quality
4	Anton-Martin et al., 2019	a	a	a	a		d	a	b	8/9	High quality
7	Hall et al., 2017	a	a	a	a		c	a	b	8/9	High quality
8	Buelow et al., 2018	a	a	a	a	-	d	a	^∗b	6/9	Poor quality
9	Wilder et al., 2016	a	a	a	a	-	d	a	^∗b	6/9	Poor quality
10	Ruotsalainen et al., 2017	a	a	a	a	^∗∗	a	a	b	9/9	High quality
12	Murthy et al., 2015	a	a	a	a		a	a	b	9/9	High quality
13	Carlo et al.. 2016	a	a	a	a		a	a	b	9/9	High quality
14	Wilder et al., 2015	a	a	a	a		c	a	b	7/9	High quality
17	Gist et al., 2013	a	a	a	a		a	a	b	9/9	High quality
22	Polimenakos et al., 2012	a	a	a	a		a	a	b	8/9	High quality
26\38\50	Murtuza et al., 2012	a	a	a	a	-	a	a	^∗b	7/9	Poor quality
27	Shaji et al., 2012	a	a	a	a		a	a	b	9/9	High quality
29 \ 36	Rüffer et al., 2011	b	a	a	a		a	a	b	9/9	High quality
31	Fiore et al., 2011	a	a	a	a		a	a	b	9/9	High quality
32\40\45\46\58	Bautista-Hernandez et al., 2011	^∗a	a	a	a	-	a	a	b	7/9	Poor quality
34\48\64\69	Graham et al., 2010	a	a	a	a		a	a	b	8/9	High quality
35\52\54\59	Ballweg et al., 2010	a	a	a	a		a	a	b	8/9	High quality
37	Pruetz et al., 2009	a	a	a	a		b	b	b	8/9	High quality
38	Fabricius et al., 2009	b	a	a	a	-	d	a	b	5/9	Poor quality
39	Al-Akhfash et al., 2009	a	a	a	a		a	a	b	8/9	High quality
41	Caspi et al., 2008	a	a	a	a	-	d	b	b	5/9	Poor quality
42	Atallah et al., 2008	a	a	a	a		a	a	b	9/9	High quality
43\44	Silva et al., 2007	a	a	a	a		a	b	b	7/9	High quality
47\60	Januszewska et al., 2007	a	a	a	a	-	b	a	b	7/9	Poor quality
51	Filippo et al., 2007	a	a	a	a		a	b	b	7/9	High quality
53\68	Pusca 2006	a	a	a	a		a	b	b	7/9	High quality
55\56	Griselli 2006	a	a	a	a		a	b	b	7/9	High quality
70	Azakie et al., 2004	a	a	a	a	-	a	a	a	7/9	Poor quality
61	Tanoue et al., 2004	a	a	a	a		a	b	b	7/9	High quality
62\65	Pizarro et al., 2004	a	a	a			a	b	b	7/9	High quality
66	Malec et al., 2003	a	a	a	a		a	b	b	7/9	High quality
67	Mair et al., 2003	a	a	a	a		a	b	b	7/9	High quality

More stars () indicate higher quality of study. S1, representativeness of exposed cohort; S2, selection of nonexposed cohort; S3, ascertainment of exposure; S4, demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of study; C1, comparability of cohort on basis of design or analysis; O1, assessment of outcome; O2, follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur; O3, adequacy of follow-up. Adjust for: (1) comparability: (1) surgery stage 1 age (days), (2) birth weight (kg)/gastational age (weeks); (2) follow-up period: at least 1 year for mortality and transplantation; (3) adequacy of follow-up of cohorts: lost subjects <5%. We considered studies as follows: Good quality: 3 or 4 stars in selection domain AND 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain AND 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain. Fair quality: 2 stars in selection domain AND 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain AND 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain. Poor quality: 0 or 1 star in selection domain OR 0 stars in comparability domain OR 0 or 1 stars in outcome/exposure domain.