Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of Quality Assessment (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale): Non randomised studies

From: What is the impact of systems of care for heart failure on patients diagnosed with heart failure: a systematic review

Study Selection Comparability of cohortsa Outcome Evidence qualityb
  Exposed cohort representative Non exposed cohort selection Exposure ascertainment Outcome not present at start Assessment Follow-up length Follow up adequacy
Workforce
 Zuily, 2010 [15] * * * * ** * * * High
 Boom, 2012 [13] * * * * ** * * * High
 NICOR, 2012 [12] * * * * ** * * * High
 Comin-Colet, 2014 [16] * * * * ** * -- -- High
Primary care
 Lee, 2010 [18] * * * * ** * * * High
 Rosstad, 2013 [17] * * * * -- -- -- -- Low
In-hospital studies
 Williams, 2010 [21] * * * * -- * * * Low
 Tuso, 2014 [22] * * * * -- * * * Low
In-hospital clinical audits/registries/quality improvement initiatives
 Boutwell, 2011 [33] * * * * -- NA NA NA Low
 Heidenreich 2012 [26] * * * * ** * * * High
 Hansen, 2013 [32] * * * * * * * * Moderate
 H2H National Quality Improvement Initiative, 2015 (H2H program) [34] * * * * -- NA NA NA Low
Transitional care
 Driscoll, 2011 [45] * * * * ** * * * High
Outpatient clinics
 Fonarow, 2011 [51] * * * * ** * * * High
 Hernandez, 2010 [49] * * * * ** * * * High
 Fenner, 2014 [50] * * * * -- - * * Low
Telemonitoring programs
 Piette, 2008 [60] * * * * -- - * * Low
 Baker, 2013 [61] * * * * ** * * * High
  1. NA not applicable as outcome data has not been reported at the time of the literature search
  2. aAlso includes controlling for potential confounders
  3. bEvidence quality
  4. Low: downgrading from moderate to low based on design or lack of information in report
  5. Moderate: study met selection criteria (4 stars), comparability (1 star and upgraded a level for 2 stars), and outcome assessment
  6. High: upgrading from moderate to high based on comparability of 2 stars