Table 2.
Evaluation of Quality and Potential Bias of Included Studies (n=49)
| Source | Quality Rating | Potential Bias |
|---|---|---|
| Abraham 2015 (57) | Good | Information, Selection/Confounding |
| Ahmad 2018 (30) | Good | None |
| Balagopal 2010 (64) | Fair | Precision, Detection, Selection/Confounding |
| Benestad 2017 (39) | Good | Detection, Attrition |
| Berntsen 2010 (52) | Fair | Selection/Confounding, Detection |
| Bonham 2017 (65) | Fair | Detection, Attrition, Selection/Confounding |
| Boodai 2014 (58) | Good | Detection, Attrition, Information, Selection/Confounding |
| Boudreau 2013 (72) | Fair | Precision, Detection, Attrition |
| Brennan 2013 (53) | Fair | Precision, Selection/Confounding, |
| Chan 2018 (63) | Good | Selection/confounding, Precision, Performance, Information, |
| Cohen 2016 (31) | Good | Precision, Detection |
| Croker 2012 (68) | Good | Attrition |
| Diaz 2010 (67) | Good | Attrition |
| Farpour-Lambert 2019 (38) | Good | None |
| Gerards 2015 (44) | Good | None |
| Gillis 2007 (74) | Fair | Performance, Precision, Detection, Attrition, Information, Selection/ Confounding, Overall believability, Reporting |
| Golley 2007 (26) | Good | Detection, Attrition |
| Hofsteenge 2014 (59) | Fair | Precision, Detection, Attrition |
| Hughes 2008 (71) | Good | Attrition, Selection/Confounding |
| Janicke 2008 (46) | Good | Detection, Attrition |
| Jiang 2005 (55) | Good | Selection/Confounding, Information, Precision, Detection |
| Johnson 1997 (40) | Fair | Precision, Detection, Information, Selection/Confounding, Reporting |
| Johnston 2007 (60) | Fair | Precision, Detection |
| Kalarchian 2009 (41) | Good | Detection, Attrition |
| Kalavainen 2007 (47) | Fair | Detection |
| Kelishadi 2009 (37) | Good | Precision, Attrition, Selection/Confounding |
| Lee 2014 (29) | Good | Precision |
| Mameli 2018 (61) | Good | Detection, Attrition, Selection/Confounding |
| McCallum 2007 (69) | Good | Performance |
| Moens 2012 (43) | Fair | Precision, Detection, Selection/Confounding, Overall believability |
| Morell-Azanza 2019 (32) | Good | Detection |
| Nemet 2005 (42) | Good | Detection, Attrition |
| O’Connor 2013 (70) | Fair | Detection |
| Reinehr 2010 (51) | Good | Detection, Selection/Confounding |
| Rodearmel 2007 (73) | Poor | Precision, Detection, Information, Selection/Confounding, |
| Sacher 2010 (33) | Good | Detection, Attrition |
| Sauder 2018 (34) | Good | Detection |
| Savoye 2014 (54) | Good | None |
| Savoye 2007 (62) | Good | Detection, Attrition |
| Serra-Paya 2015 (50) | Good | None |
| Soltero 2018 (13) | Good | Detection |
| Taylor 2015 (35) | Good | Selection/Confounding, Information |
| Vos 2011 (56) | Good | Precision, Detection, Attrition |
| Wake 2009 (45) | Good | None |
| Wang 2008 (66) | Fair | Precision, Attrition, Information, Selection/Confounding, Overall believability, Reporting |
| Weigel 2008 (48) | Fair | Selection/Confounding, Information, Precision, Detection, |
| Wilfley 2017 (36) | Good | Detection |
| Wylie-Rosett 2018 (25) | Good | Precision, Attrition |
| Yackobovitch-Gavan 2018 (49) | Fair | Detection, Attrition, Reporting |