spersion and arrhythmic and/or mortality endpoints in Brugada Syndrome.

2. METHODS {#joa312118-sec-0006}
==========

2.1. Search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria {#joa312118-sec-0007}
------------------------------------------------------

This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISM) statement. PubMed and Embase were searched for studies that investigated the association between T~peak~‐T~end~ or T~peak~‐T~end~ /QT with arrhythmic or mortality endpoints in Brugada syndrome. The following search terms were used for both databases: \["Tpeak‐Tend" or "Tpeak‐end" or "Tp‐e" AND Brugada\]. The databases were searched until 1 May 2018 without language restrictions. The following inclusion criteria were used: (a) the study was a case‐control, prospective or retrospective cohort study in human subjects with a Brugada phenotype, (b) T~peak~‐T~end~ intervals or (T~peak~‐T~end~) /QT ratios were provided; (c) predefined adverse events (appropriate implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator therapy \[ICD\], syncope, ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation \[VT/VF\], SCD, cardiovascular death \[CVD\], major adverse cardiac events \[MACE\]) or all‐cause mortality were reported. In cases of incomplete data from the published studies, the original authors were contacted, but no replies were received.

The Newcastle‐Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used for quality assessment of the included studies.[10](#joa312118-bib-0010){ref-type="ref"} The NOS system evaluated the categories of study participant selection, results comparability, and quality of the outcomes. Specifically, the following characteristics were assessed: (a) representativeness of the exposed cohort; (b) selection of the non‐exposed cohort; (c) ascertainment of exposure; (d) demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of study; (e) comparability of cohorts based on study design or analysis; (f) assessment of outcomes; (g) follow‐up 