The association between post-term births and autism spectrum disorders: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 2 Quality assessment included meta-analysis the association between post-term birth and ASD

Studies	Design^a	Limitation^b	Consistency^c	Directness^d	Inmprecision^e	Strength^g	Gradient^h	Counfoundingⁱ	Quality
Brumbaugh, 2020	Cohort	0	− 1	0	0	0	0	+ 1	Low
Leavy, 2012	Cohort	0	− 1	0	0	+ 2	+ 1	0	Low
Martini, 2022	Case–control	0	0	0	0	+ 1	+ 1	0	Moderate
Xie, 2017	Cohort	0	0	0	0	0	+ 1	0	Moderate
Atladottir, 2016	Cohort	0	0	0	0	+ 1	+ 1	0	Moderate
Persson, 2020	Cohort	0	0	0	0	0	+ 1	+ 1	Moderate
Sugie, 2005	Case–control	0	0	0	0	+ 1	+ 1	0	Moderate
Tawfeeq, 2016	Case–control	− 1	0	0	0	+ 2	+ 1	0	Low
Zhang, 2010	Case–control	0	− 1	0	− 1	+ 1	+ 1	0	Low
Fernandes, 2016	Cross-sectional	− 1	0		− 1	+ 1	+ 1	0	Low
Al-Ali, 2021	Case–control	0	− 1	0	0	0	+ 1	0	Low
Hisle-Gorman, 2018	Case–control	0	− 1	0	0	0	0	0	Low
Laxer, 1988	Case–control	− 1	− 1	0	0	+ 1	+ 1	0	Low
Rolschau, 2020	Cohort	0	− 1	0	0	0	0	0	Low
Cryan, 1996	Case–control	− 1	− 1	0	− 1	+ 2	0	0	Low
Lord, 1989	Case–control	− 1	0	0	− 1	+ 2	+ 1	0	Low
Gillberg, 1983	Case–control	− 1	0	0	− 1	+ 2	+ 1	0	Low
Mason-Brothers, 1990	Case–control	− 1	− 1	0	0	0	+ 1	0	Low

Quality of evidence and definitions: high quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect; moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate; low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate; Very low quality: any estimate of effect is very uncertain
^aRefers to the basic study design, which we have broadly categorized as randomized trials (high), observational (cohort/case–control) studies (low), and other evidence (very low)
^bRefers to the detailed study methods and execution [serious (− 1) or very serious (− 2) limitation]
^cRefers to the similarity in the estimates of effect across studies [important inconsistency (− 1)]
^dRefers to the extent to which the ‘people’, ‘interventions’, and ‘outcome measures’ are similar to those of interest [some (− 1) or major (− 2) uncertainty about directness]
^eRefers to imprecise or sparse data (− 1)
^fRefers to the high risk of reporting bias (− 1)
^gRefers to the strong (relative risk > 2 or < 0.5; + 1) or very strong (relative risk > 5 or < 0.2; + 2) evidence of association with no plausible confounders
^hRefers to evidence of a dose–response gradient (+ 1)
^IRefers to all plausible confounders that would have reduced the effect (+ 1)

ISSN: 2047-783X