Skip to main content
. 2018 Oct 29;147:e33. doi: 10.1017/S0950268818002807

Table 3.

Assessment of included modelling studies

No Author Year AaO SaP MS MM PRDS QoD PoR IDoR FS Rating
1 Astutik 2013 2 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 11 High
2 Chien 2014 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 15 Very high
3 Costa 2013 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 15 Very high
4 Fernandes 2009 2 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 13 High
5 Ferreira 2006 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 15 Very high
6 Honorato 2014 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 15 Very high
7 Hu 2011 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 12 High
8 Hu 2012 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 Very high
9 Jaya 2016 1 2 2 2 1 0 2 1 11 High
10 Johansson 2009 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 1 8 Medium
11 Kikuti 2015 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 15 Very high
12 Lekdee 2013 2 1 2 2 1 0 2 1 11 High
13 Lowe 2011 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 Very high
14 Lowe 2013 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 Very high
15 Lowe 2014 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 14 Very high
16 Lowe 2016 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 Very high
17 Martínez-Bello 2018 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 Very high
18 Martínez-Bello 2017 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 Very high
19 Mukhsar 2016a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Medium
20 Mukhsar 2016b 0 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 Low
21 Pepin 2015 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 14 Very high
22 Restrepo 2014 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 Very high
23 Samat 2012 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 9 Medium
24 Sani 2015 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 11 High
25 Vargas 2015 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 2 11 High
26 Vazquez-Prokopec 2010 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 Very high
27 Wijayanti 2016 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 14 Very high
28 Yu 2011 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 11 High
29 Yu 2014 2 1 1 2 1 0 2 2 11 High
30 Yu 2016 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 11 High
31 Zhu 2016 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 Very high
Median score 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 14 Very high
Mean score 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.8 1.8 12.9 High

AaO, aims and objectives; SaP, setting and population; MS, model structure; MM, modelling methods; PRDS, parameter ranges and data sources; QoD, quality of data; PoR, presentation of results; IDoR, interpretation and discussion of results; FS, final score.