Table 1.

Number of studies (of 38 studies) that contained information on the 16 quality assessment items.

Item	n (%)
1. Provided location of study	38 (100.0%)
2. Defined eligibility criteria, source population and sampling procedure	12 (31.6%)
3. Reported numbers of individuals at each stage of study (e.g. numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included in the study, completing assessment and included in analysis)	5 (13.2%)
4. Gave reasons for non‐participation at each stage	7 (18.4%)
5. Study dates of recruitment	30 (78.9%)
6. Clearly defined the method of assessing alcohol‐use disorders (e.g. non‐structured, semistructured or structured interview)	32 (84.2%)
7. Assessed by psychiatrist	16 (42.1%)
8. Used weighting and other analytical methods to take account of sampling strategy and non‐response rates	5 (13.2%)
9. Reported number of cases	33 (86.8%)
10. Provided unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, adjusted estimates and 95% CI	6 (15.8%)
11. Sampling method identified a sample that was representative of the source population	10 (26.3%)
12. Provided inter‐rater reliability of diagnostic assessment	23 (60.5%)
13. Used validated diagnostic tools	25 (65.8%)
14. Reported prevalence matches number of cases and sample size	32 (84.2%)
15. Interviewed key informants in the community about numbers of affected individuals in the community (reverse‐coded: if yes, score ‘0’; if no, score ‘1’)	6 (15.8%)
16. Used substitutes [usually within the same primary sampling unit (PSU) and matched on sex and age) if target subject not available (reverse‐coded: if yes, score ‘0’; if no, score ‘1’)	3 (7.9%)

CI = confidence interval.