Skip to main content
. 2023 Nov 3;30(56):118950–118963. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-30557-x

Table 6.

Quality assessment results

Study Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Total %
Charfeddine and Khediri (2016) 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 7.5 83%
Kahouli et al. (2021) 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.5 94%
Serener et al. (2022) 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 8 89%
Shahbaz et al. (2018) 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 89%
Shahbaz et al. (2020) 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8 89%
Aljadani (2022) 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 7 78%
Xu et al. (2018) 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 7.5 83%
Villanthenkodath and Arakkal (2020) 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 8.5 94%
Shahbaz et al. (2020a) 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.5 94%
Raggad (2020) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 8 89%
Awosusi et al. (2022) 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 8.5 94%
Alam et al. (2022) 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.5 94%
Shahbaz et al. (2013) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8.5 94%
Godil et al. (2020) 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 8 89%
Khan et al. (2021) 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 8 89%
Rjoub et al. (2021) 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 7 78%
Adebayo et al. (2021) 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.5 94%
Cetin et al. (2018) 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 8.5 94%
Ozturk and Acaravci (2013) 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 1 8 89%
Katircioğlu and Taşpinar (2017) 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 8 89%

The scoring procedure involved allocating points to each question based on a three-point scale: a response of “Yes” was given a value of 1, a response of “No” was assigned a value of 0, and a response of “Partially” was assigned a value of 0.5