Review Article

How Electronic Cigarette Affects the Vascular System

Table 3

Risk of bias (quality) assessment of 7 observational (cross-sectional) studies using NIH Quality Assessment.

CriteriaBricknell et al. [14]Fetterman et al. [15]Oliveri et al. [16]Podzolkov et al. [17]Rader et al. [18]Sahota et al. [19]Vindhyal et al. [20]

Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated?YesYesYesYesNoYesYes
Was the study population clearly specified and defined?YesYesYesYesNoYesYes
Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%?YesYesNoYesNot reportedYesNot reported
Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants?YesYesYesYesNot reportedYesYes
Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided?NoNoYesNoNoNoNo
For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured?NoNoNoNoNoNoNo
Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed?NoNoNoNoNoNoNo
For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)?Not applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicable
Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?NoNoNoNoNoNoNo
Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time?NoNoNoNoNoNoNo
Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?NoYesYesYesYesYesNo
Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants?Not applicableYesYesYesNot reportedNot reportedNot applicable
Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less?Not applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableNot applicable
Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?YesYesYesNot applicableNot applicableNot applicableYes
Overall quality ratingFairGoodGoodFairPoorFairPoor