Table 4. Methodological quality of cross-sectional studies included in the meta-analysis*.
Item/Study | Khader, 2011 | Ashford, 2010 | Goel, 2004 | Hanke, 1999 | Eskenazi, 1995 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | Unclear | Yes | No | Unclear | Yes | No | Unclear | Yes | No | Unclear | Yes | No | Unclear | |
1) Define the source of information (survey, record review) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
2) List inclusion and exclusion criteria for exposed and unexposed subjects (cases and controls) or refer to previous publications | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
3) Indicate time period used for identifying patients | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
4) Indicate whether or not subjects were consecutive if not population-based | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
5) Indicate if evaluators of subjective components of study were masked to other aspects of the status of the participants | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
6) Describe any assessments undertaken for quality assurance purposes (e.g., test/retest of primary outcome measurements) | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
7) Explain any patient exclusions from analysis | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
8) Describe how confounding was assessed and/or controlled. | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
9) If applicable, explain how missing data were handled in the analysis | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
10) Summarize patient response rates and completeness of data collection | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||||||
11) Clarify what follow-up, if any, was expected and the percentage of patients for which incomplete data or follow-up was obtained | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
* The definition/explanation of each column of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is available from (http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings).