NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Kansagara D, O'Neil M, Nugent S, et al. Benefits and Harms of Cannabis in Chronic Pain or Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review [Internet]. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2017 Aug.
Benefits and Harms of Cannabis in Chronic Pain or Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review [Internet].
Show detailsQuality Assessment Criteria for Observational Studies, Based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale21
| Representativeness of the exposed cohort Enter 0 or 1: 1 = truly representative of the average patient in the community 1 = somewhat representative of the average patient in the community 0 = selected group of users (eg, nurses, volunteers) 0 = no description of the derivation of the cohort |
| Selection of the non-exposed cohort Enter 0 or 1: 1 = drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort 0 = drawn from a different source 0 = no description of the derivation of the non-exposed cohort |
| Ascertainment of exposure Enter 0 or 1: 1 = biological test (eg, blood/urine) 1 = structured interview 1 = written self-report that characterizes dose (current or cumulative) 0 = written self-report without quantification of exposure 0 = no description |
| Precision of Exposure Dose Ascertainment Enter 0 or 1: 1 = amount and time 0 = no information about amount and time |
| Ascertainment of exposure done prospectively or retrospectively Enter 0 or 1: 1 = Prospectively 0 = Retrospectively |
| Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study, OR baseline assessment Enter 0 or 1: 1= yes 0 = no |
| Adjustment for confounding (rendering comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis) Add points: Minimum 0, Maximum 2 1 = study accounts/controls for other substance use 1 = study controls for any additional factor (mental health comorbidity; medication use; severity of PTSD; mental health comorbidity and treatment; socioeconomic status) 0 = no adjustment for potential confounders |
| Assessment of outcome Enter 0 or 1: 1 = objective measure 1 = validated self-report measures 0 = no information or non-validated measures |
| Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? Enter 0 or 1: 1 = yes (need to define adequate follow-up period for outcome of interest) 0 = no |
| Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts Enter 0 or 1: 1 = complete follow-up; all subjects accounted for. 1 = subjects lost to follow-up unlikely to introduce bias; small number (less than 20 %) lost, or description was provided of those lost. 0 = follow-up rate < 80% and no description of those lost. 0 = no statement |
- [Table], Quality Assessment Criteria for Observational Studies, Based on the New...[Table], Quality Assessment Criteria for Observational Studies, Based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale - Benefits and Harms of Cannabis in Chronic Pain or Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...