Meta-analysis comparing differing methods of endoscopic therapy for colorectal lesions

Table 5 Criteria for modified newcastle ottawa scoring system

Quality Checklist
Selection
1	Assignment for treatment-any criteria reported (if yes, 1-star)?
2	How representative was the reference group (EMR group) in comparison to the general population for colorectal lesions? (If yes, 1-star, no stars if the patients were selected or selection of group was not described)
3	How representative was the treatment group (ESD group) in comparison to the general population for colorectal lesions? (If drawn from the same community as the reference group, 1-star, no stars if drawn from a different source or selection of group was not described)
Comparability
Comparability variables	(1) Age; (2) gender; (3) lesion size; (4) LST; (5) lesion location; (6) LGD; (7) HGD; (8) submucosal tumor; (9)non-invasive cancer; (10) cancer
4	Groups comparable for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (If yes, 1-star was assigned for each of these. No star was assigned if the two groups differed)
5	Groups comparable for 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (If yes, 1-star was assigned for each of these. No star was assigned if the two groups differed)
Outcome assessment
6	Clearly defined outcome of interest (if yes, 1-star)
7	Follow-up (1-star if described)

EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; LST: Lateral spreading tumor; LGD: Low grade dysplasia; HGD: High grade dysplasia.