Table 1.
Study, Year | Country/region | Study design | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Total score | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Duong et al., 2018) | Vietnam | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Han et al., 2020) | Thailand | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(He et al., 2018) | China | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Hidaka et al., 2014) | Japan | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Ko et al., 2012) | Taiwan, China | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Lim et al., 2015) | Malaysia | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Liu & Detels, 2012) | China | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Mao et al., 2021) | China | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Nemoto et al., 2012) | Thailand | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Nishijima et al., 2013) | Japan | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Pattanasin et al., 2016) | Thailand | Cohort study | *** | ** | *** | 8 | Good |
(Piyaraj et al., 2018) | Thailand | Cohort study | *** | ** | *** | 8 | Good |
(Sapsirisavat et al., 2016) | Thailand | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Sze et al., 2020) | Hong Kong SAR | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Tan et al., 2021) | Singapore | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(N. T. T. Vu et al., 2017) | Vietnam | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(N. T. Vu et al., 2017) | Vietnam | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Z. Wang et al., 2020) | China | Cohort study | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Wansom et al., 2020) | Thailand | Cohort study | ** | ** | ** | 6 | Fair |
(Wu, Shen, Chiou, Fang, & Lo, 2019) | Taiwan, China | Case-control | *** | ** | *** | 8 | Good |
(Xu, Qian, et al., 2014) | China | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Xu, Zhang, et al., 2014) | China | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
(Yang et al., 2016) | China | Cross-sectional | *** | ** | ** | 7 | Good |
The selection, comparability, and exposure of each study were broadly assessed. Studies with 3 or 4 stars in selection domain AND 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain AND 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain were considered of good quality; studies with 2 stars in selection domain AND 1 or 2 stars in comparability domain AND 2 or 3 stars in outcome/exposure domain were considered of fair quality; or were considered as poor quality (Wells et al., 2000).