Table 4.

Quality assessment of the included studies.

Author	Sample size	Study design	Response proportion	Diagnostic assessment	Total
Farrag et al. [17]	1.5	2	3	2	8.5
El Tallawy et al. [18]	2	2	3	4	11
El Tallawy et al. [19]	2	2	3	4	11
Khedr et al. [20]	1	2	3	4	10
Chahine et al. [21]	0.5	2	1	1	4.5
Phung et al. [22]	1	0	1	4	6
Ogunniyi et al. [26]	0.5	0	0	2	2.5
Qureshi et al. [27]	1	N/A	N/A	3	4
Albugami et al. [3]	0.5	2	3	4	9.5
Hamad et al. [28]	0.5	2	0	4	6.5
Ghuloum et al. [23]	1.5	1	2	2	6.5
Ouanes et al. [24]	0.5	0	2	1	3.5
Ghubash et al. [25]	1	2	3	4	10
Chaaya et al. [29]	1	0	1	4	6
Al-Khateeb et al. [30]	0.5	0	0	1	1.5
Alaama et al. [31]	0.5	0	0	1	1.5
Haithem et al. [32]	0.5	0	0	1	1.5
Shamieh et al. [34]	1	0	0	1	2

Sample size: <500, 0.5 point; 500–1499, 1 point; 1500–2999, 1.5 points; ≥3000, 2 points. Study design: two-phase or one-phase study with no sampling of screen negatives, 0 points; two-phase study with sampling of screen negatives but no weighting back, 1 point; one-phase study or two-phase study with appropriate sampling and weighting, 2 points. Response proportion: not mentioned, 0; <60%, 1 point; 60–79%, 2 points; ≥80%, 3 points. Diagnostic assessment: one point each for multidomain cognitive test battery, formal disability assessment, informant interview, and clinical interview.