Table 4. Risk of bias in case–control and cross-sectional studies included in the meta-analysis of extended-spectrum β-lactamase-associated infection among children and young adults in South-East Asia and Western Pacific countries, 2005–2018.
| Author | Selection |
Comparability |
Exposure |
Total scoreb | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representativeness of sample | Sample size | Non-respondents | Ascertainment of exposure (risk factor) | Different outcome groups are comparable; confounding factors are controlleda | Assessment of exposure or outcome | Same method of ascertainment for cases and controls | Non-response rate or statistical test | ||||
| Boo et al., 200522 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | ||
| Kuo et al., 200726 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | ||
| Gaurav et al., 201133 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | ||
| Minami et al., 201236,c | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||
| Fan et al. 201439 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | ||
| Themphachana et al., 201440,c | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | ||
| Young et al., 201441,c | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | ||
| Zuo et al., 201442,c | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | ||
| Sharma et al., 201648,c | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | ||
| Tsai et al., 201755 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | ||
| Chen et al., 201750 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | ||
| Bunjoungmanee et al., 201856 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | ||
| Kitagawa et al., 201857 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | ||
a Subjects in different outcome groups are comparable, based on the study design or analysis.
b Maximum score: 8.
c Cross-sectional study.
Notes: We applied the Newcastle–Ottawa scale to assess risk of bias in non-randomized studies.14 Only studies scoring ≥ 5 and ≤ 8 were designated low risk of bias, ≥ 3 and ≤ 4 as moderate and ≤ 2 as high. We made Mantel-Haenszel radom-effects