From:  Nut consumption and musculoskeletal health: a systematic review

 Newcastle–Ottawa risk of bias assessment for observational studies (n = 7).

Author (year), study designSelectionComparabilityOUTCOME for Cross- Sectional StudiesTotal stars
S1S2S3S4C1C2E1/O1E2/O2E3
Wild et al. (2024), Cohort [14]*-*******8/9
Wang et al. (2023), Cohort [13]*-*******8/9
Jun and Shin (2024), Cross-sectional [31]*-*N/A
****N/A6/7
Xu et al. (2025), Cross-sectional [16]*-*N/A
****N/A
6/7
Mazumdar et al. (2025), Cross-sectional [33]?**N/A
****N/A
6/7
Feyesa et al. (2025), Cross-sectional [15]*-*N/A
*-**N/A
5/7
Garrido-Miguel et al. (2021), Cross-sectional [30]***N/A
*-**N/A
6/7

Selection: S1 representativeness of the sample; S2 non-respondents’ rate; S3 ascertainment of the exposure; S4 definition of the control. Comparability: C1 study controls for main confounders (age and sex); C2 study controls for any additional potential confounders. Exposure: E1 ascertainment of exposure; E2 same method of ascertainment of cases and controls; E3 non-response rate. Outcome: O1 assessment of outcome; O2 statistical analysis. 1 failed category; high quality, 2 or more failed categories; lower scores.