Table 2.
Risk of bias of individual studies.
| First author | Published year | External validity | Internal validity | Summary item | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||
| Guruprasad et al. [19] | 2013 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Shaikh and Aziz [20] | 2005 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Lepcha et al. [21] | 2013 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Thapa et al. [22] | 2011 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Sherchan et al. [23] | 2010 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Sapkota et al. [24] | 2010 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Murthy et al. [25] | 2009 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Jadoon et al. [26] | 2007 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Anjum et al. [27] | 2006 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Sapkota et al. [28] | 2006 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Wadud et al. [29] | 2006 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Haider et al. [30] | 2003 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Nirmalan et al. [31] | 2003 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Khan and Jadoon [32] | 2015 | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Sapkota and Limburg [33] | 2012 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low risk of bias |
| Muhit et al. [34] | 2016 | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Low risk of bias |
1 = was the study's target population a close representation of the national population in relation to relevant variables? 2 = was the sampling frame a true or close representation of the target population? 3 = was some form of random selection used to select the sample, OR; was a census undertaken? 4 = was the likelihood of nonresponse bias minimal? 5 = were data collected directly from the subjects? 6 = was an acceptable case definition used in the study? 7 = was the study instrument that measured the parameter of interest shown to have reliability and validity? 8 = was the same mode of data collection used for all subjects? 9 = was the length of the shortest prevalence period for the parameter of interest appropriate? 10 = were the numerator and denominator for the parameter of interest appropriate?