Table 1. Precision and risk of bias assessment for West Nile virus prevalence measures in the EMRO region.
| Author, Year | Country | Sampling Method¥ | Risk of bias | Precision | Ref. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In sampling¥ | In response rate | In assay selection | |||||
| General population | |||||||
| Andayi, 2014 | Djibouti | Random | Low | Unclear | Low | High | [23] |
| Faulde, 2012 | Djibouti | Conv. | Low | Low (100%) | High | Low | [24] |
| Youssef, 2017 | Egypt | Conv. | High | Unclear | High | High | [25] |
| Soliman, 2010 | Egypt | Random | Low | Unclear | Low | High | [26] |
| Darwish 1996 | Egypt | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High | High | [22] |
| Corwin, 1993 | Egypt | CS | Low | Low (93%) | High | High | [27] |
| Corwin, 1992 | Egypt | Random | Low | Low (78%) | High | High | [28] |
| Darwish, 1975 | Egypt | CS | Low | Unclear | High | High | [29] |
| Taylor, 1956 | Egypt | CS | Low | Unclear | Low | High | [30] |
| Aghaie, 2016 | Iran | Conv. | High | Unclear | High | High | [31] |
| Meshkat, 2015 | Iran | MSCS | Low | Unclear | High | High | [32] |
| Chinikar, 2013 | Iran | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High | Low | [33] |
| Sharifi, 2010 | Iran | Conv. | High | Low (100%)* | High | High | [34] |
| Saidi, 1976 | Iran | Random | Low | Unclear | Low | High | [17] |
| Saidi,1974 | Iran | Random | Low | Unclear | NA | High | [16] |
| Naficy, 1970 | Iran | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | High | [19] |
| Barakat, 2016 | Iraq | Conv. | High | Low (100%)** | Low | High | [35] |
| Batieha, 2000 | Jordan | Conv. | High | 56% | High | High | [36] |
| Gallian, 2010 | Lebanon | Conv. | High | Unclear | Low | High | [37] |
| Garabedian, 1971ǂ | Lebanon | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | High | High | [18] |
| Shaibi, 2017 | Libya | Random | Low | Unclear | High | High | [38] |
| El Harrak 2016ǂ | Morocco | Conv. | High | Unclear | Low | High | [39] |
| El Rhaffouli, 2013 | Morocco | Conv. | High | Low (100%)* | Low | High | [40] |
| El Rhaffouli, 2012 | Morocco | Random | Low | Low (100%) | Low | High | [41] |
| Niazi 2017 | Pakistan | Random | Low | Unclear | High | High | [42] |
| Sugamata, 1989 | Pakistan | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | High | [43] |
| Sugamata, 1988 | Pakistan | Unclear | Unclear | Unclear | Low | Low | [44] |
| Darwish, 1983 | Pakistan | Conv. | High | Unclear | High | Low | [45] |
| Hayes, 1982 | Pakistan | Conv. | High | Low (100%)** | Low | High | [46] |
| Yousof 2017 | Sudan | Random | Low | Low (100%)* | High | Low | [47] |
| Farnon 2010 | Sudan | Conv. | High | Unclear | Low | Low | [48] |
| Salim, 1973 | Sudan | Conv. | High | Unclear | Low | High | [49] |
| Taylor, 1956 | Egypt | CS | Low | Unclear | Low | High | [30] |
| Smithbur, 1942 | Anglo- Egyptian Sudan |
CS | Low | Unclear | Low | High | [50] |
| Riabi, 2010 | Tunisia | Conv. | High | Low (100%)** | Low | High | [51] |
| Alfaresi, 2008 | UAE | Conv. | High | Unclear | High | Low | [52] |
| Patients | |||||||
| Elyan, 2014 | Afghanistan | NA | NA | Unclear | High | High | [53] |
| Darwish, 1987 | Egypt | NA | NA | Unclear | High | Low | [54] |
| Mohammed, 1970 | Egypt | NA | NA | Low (100%) | High | High | [55] |
| Abdel Wahab, 1970ǂ | Egypt | NA | NA | Unclear | NA | High | [20] |
| Chinikar, 2012 | Iran | NA | NA | Unclear | Low | High | [56] |
| Yaqub,2017 | Pakistan | NA | NA | Low (100%)€ | Low | High | [57] |
| Khan, 2016 | Pakistan | NA | NA | 100% | High | High | [58] |
| Bryan, 1996ǂ | Pakistan | NA | NA | Unclear | NA | High | [21] |
| Igarashi, 1994 | Pakistan | NA | NA | Unclear | Low | High | [59] |
| Depoortere, 2004 | Sudan | NA | NA | Low (100%)€ | High | Low | [60] |
| McCarthy, 1996 | Sudan | NA | NA | Unclear | High | High | [61] |
| Watts, 1994 | Sudan | NA | NA | Unclear | High | High | [62] |
| Riabi, 2014 | Tunisia | NA | NA | Unclear | Low | High | [63] |
| Feki, 2005 | Tunisia | NA | NA | Low (100%) | Low | Low | [64] |
| Qassem, 2014 | Yemen | NA | NA | Unclear | High | Low | [65] |
* On blood specimens stored in the blood transfusion center
** On volunteers
ǂ Studies were classified as having “Unclear” risk of bias for a given domain if they did not provide information for that specific domain. These studies were categorized as “Unclear” risk of bias.
¥ Use of probabilistic sampling methods was only evaluated for studies on the general population, because acute infection studies included individuals attending to healthcare facilities. So, risk of bias assessment for the “sampling” domain, was “Not Applicable” (NA) for patients.
€ On archived samples.
Abbreviations: Conv: Convenience sampling. CS: Cluster Sampling. MSCS: Multi-stage cluster sampling. NA: Not applicable to the field.