Table 1.
Risk of bias assessment
| Author(s), year | Compliance | Blinding | Incomplete outcome data | Similarity of groups at baseline | Control of confounding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moawed et al., 2019 [42] | Self-administered | No | N/M | N/A (Cross-sectional design) | No |
| Abullais et al., 2020 [31] | Self-administered | No | Of the randomly selected sample of 205 caregivers, 164 completed the study. The response rate was 80%. | N/A (Cross-sectional design) |
No. 1- The inter-group statistical comparison for the distribution of categorical variables is done using the Chi-Square test. 2- The inter-group statistical comparison for distribution of means of continuous variables is done using an independent sample t-test for two groups and by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure for more than two groups. 3- The underlying normality assumption was tested before subjecting the study variables to t-test and ANOVA. |
| Almas et al., 2003 [15] | Self-administered | No | Response rate of 85.5%. | N/A (Cross-sectional design) | No. The data were generated for frequency distributions and Chi-square tests for comparisons. |
| Kotha et al., 2003 [50] | Self-administered | No |
No; To overcome certain rejections, our target was marginally increased to get more than the prescribed sample size. |
N/A (Cross-sectional design) |
No. 1- An independent sample t-test was used to analyze between the parents (mothers and fathers) regarding their knowledge, dietary, and hygiene practices. 2- One-way ANOVA for the other demographic factors was used to analyze the relationship of the parental practices followed by a post hoc analysis to analyze the intragroup influence within mean demographic variables. 3- Chi-square analysis was done to assess how the child was taken to a dentist in relation to demographic variables. Pearson’s correlation was used to correlate parental knowledge and their practices to estimate the interrelationships within themselves. |
|
Al-Abdaly et al., 2019 [49] |
?? (Interview and clinical examination) |
No | No | N/A (Cross-sectional design) |
No. 1- Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to assess the variations in the mean and standard deviation (± SD) of PLI, GI, PPD, GR and CAL. 2- The Chi-square test was applied to evaluate the relationship between periodontal and oral hygiene status of patients. |
| Gaffar et al., 2016 [24] | Self-reported | No | 197/217 (91%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. |
|
Aldosari et al., 2019 [40] |
Self-reported | No | 257/469 (55%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test. |
|
Ismaeil et al., 2013 [55] |
Self-reported | No | 612 (N/M) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Comprehensive descriptive statistics were produced for all demographics and KAP variables. |
| Srivastava, 2019 [23] | Self-reported | No | 228 (N/M) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Post hoc analysis and Chi-square test. |
| Al-Zahrani et al., 2014 [52] | Self-reported | No | 101 (N/M) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-Square test. |
|
Farsi et al., 2020 [22] |
Self-reported | No | 2586 (N/M) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Paired, unpaired and chi-square test. Tucky’s paired comparison procedures, and correlation coefficients. Wilcoxon-rank sum test and multiple logistic regressions were used to assess the probability of having the disease and risk factor under study. |
|
Al Subait et al., 2016 [21] |
Self-reported | No | 202/250 (80.8%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test, ANOVA, Bonferroni post-hoc tests and T-test |
| Al-Shammery et al., 2018 [53] | No | No | 813/2200(N/M) | N/A (cross-over design) | No. Nonparametric Mann–Whitney Utest and Wilcoxon’s signedrank test. Shapiro–Wilk test was performed to check the normality distribution |
| Halawany et al., 2018 [67] | Self-reported | No | 1661/1835 (N/M) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. One-way ANOVA, Greenhouse-Geisser test, and Wilks’ Lambda. Paired T-test, post-hoc tests. Subtracting the mean difference in the pre- and post-intervention in each class groups. |
| Mustafa et al., 2018 [16] | Self-reported | No | 240/240 (100%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. A simple descriptive analysis was done, and the data were expressed in terms of frequencies and percentages. The collected data were appropriately arranged and analyzed through different computer software applications. |
| Alshehri et al., 2015 [7] | Self-reported | No | 301/425 (93.19%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. |
| Elsabagh et al., 2018 [48] | Self-reported | No | 278/300 (92.6%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. All data was tabulated with frequencies and percentages of answers. Descriptive statistics were performed for the questionnaire items. |
| Al-Mutairi et al., 2017 [51] | Self-reported | No | 108 (54%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. |
| Ahmad, 2015 [32] | Self-reported | No | 114/120 (95%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test. |
| Al Rasheed et al., 2017 [41] | Self-reported | No | 1420/2000 (71%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test. |
| Ansari et al., 2018 [37] | Self-reported | No | 729 (N/M) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test. |
| Alshammary et al., 2019 [29] | Self-reported | No | 223/250 (89.2%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test. |
| Ashour, 2020 [39] | Self-reported | No | 247/320 (77%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. |
| Al-Shetaiwi et al., 2018 [28] | Self-reported | No | 465/500 (N/M) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. ANOVA test. |
| Ansari et al., 2017 [46] | Self-reported | No | 794 (N/M) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. |
| Hamasha et al., 2018 [44] | Self-reported | No | 519/553 (94%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi square tests. |
|
Mulla et al., 2016 [13] |
Self-reported | No | 119 (N/M) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test. |
| Al-Johani et al., 2019 [36] | Self-reported | No | 200/200 (100%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. |
| Abu-Hammad et al., 2018 [30] | Self-reported | No | 360 (N/M) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. |
| Assery, 2016 [25] | Self-reported | No | 252/300 (84%) | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi square test and t-test. |
|
Aljanakh et al., 2016 [33] |
Self-administered | No | The response rate in the study was 97% | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square tests were applied to check the association among genders. |
| Hamasha et al., 2019 [40] | Self-administered | No | Approximately the response rate of 84.5%. | N/A (cross-sectional design) |
No. 1- one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni tests were used to assess differences in the mean number of correct answers among demographic categories. |
| Sharanesha, 2020 [45] | Self-administered | No | No | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test. |
| Aljrais et al., 2018 [38] | Self-administered | No | No | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Correlation bivariate test was performed to find the relationship between the DS and PS knowledge, attitude, and practice toward oral health. |
| Togoo et al., 2012 [2] | Self-administered | No | The response rate of 97%. | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Descriptive statistics were obtained and means, standard deviations, and frequency distribution were calculated. |
| Al-Kheraif et al., 2008 [18] |
Clinical examination and Self-administered questionnaire |
No | The response rate of the study was 79.2% | N/A (cross-sectional design) |
No. Frequency distributions and Chi- square test for statistical evaluation of proportions of the two groups were obtained. |
| Baseer et al., 2018 [53] | Self-administered | No | No | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro– Wilk’s tests |
| Alshloul, 2021 [12] | No | No | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Different differential statistical tests | |
| Wyne et al., 2004 [19] | Self-administered | No | No | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test |
| Jaber et al., 2017 [47] | Self-administered | No | No | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test |
| Baseer et al., 2012 [14] | Self-administered | No | The response rate of the study was 80.5% | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. ANOVA, Chi-square tests and z-tests were performed. |
| Wyne et al., 2015 [34] | Self-administered | No | No | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test |
| Wyne, 2007 [27] | Self-administered | No | No | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Pearson Chi-Square test and Fisher’s Exact Test |
| Al-Bader et al., 2006 [26] | Self-administered | No | Response rate of 50%. | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. |
| Wyne, 2004 [20] | Self-administered | No | N/A (cross-sectional design) | No. Chi-square test | |
| Awartani, 2009 [54] | Interview | No | No. |
KAP, knowledge, attuited and practice; PPD, probing pocket dept; GR, gingival recession; PLI, dental plaque index; GI, gingival index; CAL, clinical attachment loss