Table 3.

Quality rating scores of articles comprising the 28 unique cohorts evaluating HRQOL among patients with active TB

Study [Reference]	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	Summary score
Aghanwa [1]	2	2	0	0	2	0	1	1	8
Aydin [2]	2	1	0	0	2	0	0	1	6
Babikako [3]	2	1	0	0	2	2	0	2	9
Bauer [4]	2	2	1	2	2	0	2	2	13
Bhatia [6], Dellborg [9, 10], Engstrom [19], Olofson [37]	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	2
	1	2	2	0	2	0	0	1	8
Deribew [12]	2	2	2	0	2	0	1	2	11
Dhingra [13, 14]	1	2	1	0	2	0	0	1	7
Dhuria [15]	2	0	1	0	2	0	0	2	7
Dion [16, 17]	2	2	2	0	2	0	0	2	10
Fu [20]	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
Guo [21]	2	1	2	0	2	0	0	1	8
Husain [26]	1	1	1	0	2	0	1	2	8
Kruijshaar [29]	2	2	2	0	2	0	1	2	11
Lopez-Campos [31]	1	0	0	0	2	0	0	1	4
Maguire [32]	2	0	2	0	1	0	0	2	7
Marra [33]	0	2	2	0	2	0	2	1	9
Muniyandi [35]	1	0	2	2	2	2	2	2	13
Pasipanodya [38]	0	2	2	0	2	2	0	1	9
Pehrsson [39]	1	0	2	0	1	0	0	1	5
Rajeswari [40]	2	1	2	0	2	2	0	1	10
Unalan [45, 46]	2	0	2	2	2	2	0	1	11
Vinaccia [49]	1	0	0	0	2	0	0	1	4
Westaway [53]	1	2	2	0	2	0	2	1	10
Windisch [56, 57]	2	2	1	0	1	0	0	2	8
Yang [59]	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2
Yelken [60]	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	3

The eight items in the quality rating tool were extracted from the STROBE Statement—checklist of items that should be included in observational studies (version 4) based on study characteristics anticipated to vary widely across studies, with particular focus on methods and results [48]

Item 1: description of study population

Item 2: description of sampling mechanism

Item 3: accounting for losses to follow-up

Item 4: quality check of HRQoL responses performed during data collection

Item 5: description of HRQoL instruments used in data collection

Item 6: data entry check before analysis

Item 7: interviewer training (before and throughout data collection process)

Item 8: discussion of strengths and limitations of study