revisiaLog inSign up

Risk of bias figure › Newcastle-Ottawa

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: items, stars and figure

Paste each study’s stars and the figure turns them into good, fair or poor quality with the AHRQ thresholds. Free, in your browser.

What the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale is

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (Wells GA et al., Ottawa Hospital Research Institute) rates cohort and case-control studies with stars in three sections: selection (up to 4), comparability (up to 2) and outcome for cohorts or exposure for case-control studies (up to 3). A study scores at most 9 stars.

Stars have no colour, so the figure uses the thresholds the AHRQ standards apply to them. Good: 3 or 4 stars in selection, 1 or 2 in comparability and 2 or 3 in outcome. Fair: 2 in selection, with the same in the other two. Poor: 0 or 1 in selection, 0 in comparability, or 0 or 1 in outcome.

The three sections

On the figure they are D1 to D3:

  • D1 Selection
  • D2 Comparability
  • D3 Outcome (cohort) or exposure (case-control)

Good · Fair · Poor. Grey: cells not filled in yet.

From stars to an overall judgement

Paste the stars as they are (“3”, “***” or “★★”) and the tool converts them section by section. Only selection can come out fair.

Each study’s overall is poor if any section is poor; otherwise selection decides between good and fair. That is the AHRQ rule for the whole study, stricter than adding up stars.

The items of the scale

Cohort studies

  1. Selection 1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort
  2. Selection 2) Selection of the non exposed cohort
  3. Selection 3) Ascertainment of exposure
  4. Selection 4) Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study
  5. Comparability 1) Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis (up to 2 stars)
  6. Outcome 1) Assessment of outcome
  7. Outcome 2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur
  8. Outcome 3) Adequacy of follow up of cohorts

Case-control studies

  1. Selection 1) Is the case definition adequate?
  2. Selection 2) Representativeness of the cases
  3. Selection 3) Selection of Controls
  4. Selection 4) Definition of Controls
  5. Comparability 1) Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis (up to 2 stars)
  6. Exposure 1) Ascertainment of exposure
  7. Exposure 2) Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls
  8. Exposure 3) Non-Response rate

Quoted from Wells GA et al. (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute). Each item awards at most one star, except comparability, which awards up to two.

How to make the Newcastle-Ottawa figure

  1. The table above is already set to Newcastle-Ottawa. Replace the example studies with yours, or paste the table from Excel or Google Sheets (the robvis template works).
  2. Pick the judgement for each domain and, if the instrument has one, press “Fill in the overall judgement” and correct what needs correcting.
  3. Download the traffic light plot, the summary plot or both: PDF or SVG when the journal wants vector artwork; PNG or TIFF at the column width and 300 or 600 dpi when it wants an image.

Frequently asked questions

How many stars does the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale have?

Nine at most: 4 for selection, 2 for comparability and 3 for outcome (cohort) or exposure (case-control).

Is there an official cut-off for “good quality”?

No. The scale defines none. Many reviews use the AHRQ conversion this tool applies; others use a total star count (for example, 7 or more). Say which one in your methods.

Can I use it for cross-sectional studies?

The original scale covers cohort and case-control studies. Adaptations for cross-sectional studies exist but are not part of it. The JBI checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies is in the instrument list.

Can I use the figure in my paper?

Yes. Unless you are signed in to a revisia account with a verified email, what you download carries a small revisia mark under the figure, outside the drawing. With a verified email the figure comes out clean, in the preview and in every format. The account is free.

The figure is the last step of the assessment. revisia does the ones before it.

revisia assesses the risk of bias of every included study, domain by domain, and points to the sentence in the paper that supports each judgement so you can confirm or change it. The figure draws itself from what you decide. The account is free; the AI assessment is part of the paid plans.

Create a free account

Domains and judgement levels are those published by each instrument’s authors: RoB 2, Sterne JAC et al. BMJ 2019;366:l4898; RoB 1, Higgins JPT et al. BMJ 2011;343:d5928; ROBINS-I, Sterne JAC et al. BMJ 2016;355:i4919; ROBINS-I V2, draft of 20 November 2025 (riskofbias.info); ROBINS-E, Higgins JPT et al. Environ Int 2024;186:108602; QUADAS-2, Whiting PF et al. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-36; PROBAST, Wolff RF et al. Ann Intern Med 2019;170:51-8; Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, Wells GA et al., Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; JBI checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies, JBI. The traffic light and summary plots follow the format of the robvis package: McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods 2021;12:55-61. This tool is independent: it is not affiliated with, endorsed by or maintained by Cochrane, the instruments’ authors or robvis. Your data never leaves your browser. Other free tools: all tools · PRISMA flow diagram.