Table 2. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for studies reporting prevalence data.
| Authors | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akodu et al 2018 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Alibazi et al 2017 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | E |
| Alves de Oliveira et al 2013 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Camci et al 2013 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Castelein et al 2016 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | I |
| Chen et al 2015 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | E |
| Chen et al 2018 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | I |
| Christiansen et al 2017 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | I |
| Balci et al 2016 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Bullock et al 2021 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | I |
| Da Silva et al 2008 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Deng et al 2017 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Frizziero et al 2018 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Hannah et al 2017 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Huang et al 2015 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Johansson et al 2016 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Kawasaki et al 2012 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Lee et al 2017 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | I |
| Madsen et al 2011 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Maor et al 2017 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | I |
| Moghadam et al 2018 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Murty et al 2015 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | E |
| Nodehi Moghadam et al 2019 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Park et al 2013 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Park et al 2014 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Plummer et al 2017 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Rabin et al 2018 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Sahinoglu et al 2020 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Sant et al 2018 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | I |
| Seitz et al 2015 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Shah et al 2016 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | I |
| Silva et al 2018 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Struyf et al 2014 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | I |
| Tsuruike et al 2018 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | I |
| Welbeck et al 2019 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Yesilyaprak et al 2016 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
| Yüksel et al 2014 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | I |
1=Yes, 0=No, Unclear, or Not Applicable, I=Included, E=Excluded; 1. Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population?; 2. Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way?; 3. Was the sample size adequate?; 4. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?; 5. Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?; 6. Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition?; 7. Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?; 8. Was there appropriate statistical analysis?; 9. Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?