Table 2.

Risk of bias assessment.

Analytical cross-sectional studies	Quiroz-Vergara JC, et al.29	Andrade DL, et al.23	Kurizky PS, et al.24	Lopes N, et al.30	Ferreira CN, et al.31	Kivelevitch DN, et al.28	DiBonaventura M, et al.15	Mazzuoccoloa LD, et al.32
Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined?
Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition?
Were confounding factors identified?
Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
Was appropriate statistical analysis used?

Descriptive cross-sectional studies	Rada JR, et al.18	Figueroa P, et al.19	Úsuga F, et al.14	Lopes N, et al.6	Lopes LC, et al.17	Silveira MSN, et al.33	Gonçalves LMT, et al.21	Lopes N, et al.16
Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population?
Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way?
Was the sample size adequate?
Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?
Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition?
Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?
Was there appropriate statistical analysis?
Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?

Cohort studies	Araujo KM, et al.26	Cataño J, et al.20
Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population?
Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups?
Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
Were confounding factors identified?
Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
Were the groups/participants free of the outcome at the start of the study (or at the moment of exposure)?
Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
Was the follow up time reported and sufficient to be long enough for outcomes to occur?
Was follow up complete, and if not, were the reasons to loss to follow up described and explored?
Were strategies to address incomplete follow up utilized?
Was appropriate statistical analysis used?

Meta-analysis	Maza, RGC.7
Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated?
Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question?
Was the search strategy appropriate?
Were the sources and resources used to search for studies adequate?
Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate?
Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently?
Were there methods to minimize errors in data extraction?
Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate?
Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
Were recommendations for policy and/or practice supported by the reported data?
Were the specific directives for new research appropriate?

Critical appraisal was performed utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute Tools10, 11, 12, 13; the appropriate checklists were applied according to study design.

Y, Yes; N, No; U, Unclear; NA, Not Applicable.