Table S1. Cross-sectional studies.

Study ID	Disease	Item 1	Item 2	Item 3	Item 4	Item 5	Item 6	Item 7	Item 8	Item 9	Item 10	Item 11	Scores†
Dai 2004 (22)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	3
Zou 2004 (23)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	5
Wang 2003 (24)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	6
Gao 2003 (25)	SARS	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	2
Lin 2003 (26)	SARS	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	3
Xu 2003 (27)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	6
Gao 2003 (28)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	3
Yuan 2003 (29)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	3
Wang 2003 (30)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	5
Wang 2003 (31)	SARS	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	1
Wu 2004 (32)	SARS	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	2
Huang 2003 (33)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	4
Li 2003 (34)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	3
Fei 2003 (35)	SARS	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	3
He 2003 (37)	SARS	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	7
Ho 2003 (38)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	6
Li 2003 (39)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	3
Varia 2003 (41)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	4
Lau 2004 (42)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	4
Zhou 2004 (43)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	6
Chen 2006 (44)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	4
Cooper 2009 (45)	SARS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	4
Oboho 2015 (46)	MERS	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	7
Xiang 2015 (47)	MERS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	6
Alenazi 2017 (49)	MERS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	4
Memish 2015 (50)	MERS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	5
Park 2016 (51)	MERS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	6
Hunter 2016 (53)	MERS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	5
Amer 2018 (54)	MERS	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	6
Hijawi 2013 (56)	MERS	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	3

^†, according to the methodology evaluation tool recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This tool assesses the quality of bias according to 11 criteria. And each criterion is answered by “Yes”, “No” or “unsure”. The results were summarized by scoring method, for the “Yes” items, the score was 1, and for the “no” items, the score was 0. The maximum score is 11; the higher the score, the lower the risk of bias. The numbers 1 to 11 refer to the items of the tool: 1. defining the source of information (survey, record review); 2. listing the inclusion and exclusion criteria for exposed and unexposed subjects or referring to previous publications; 3. indicate time period used for identifying patients; 4. indicating whether the subjects were recruited consecutively (if not population-based); 5. indicating if evaluators of subjective components of the study were masked from the participants; 6. description of any assessments undertaken for quality assurance purposes (e.g., test/retest of primary outcome measurements); 7. explaining any exclusions of patients from the analysis; 8. description how confounding was assessed and/or controlled; 9. if applicable, explaining how missing data were handled in the analysis; 10. summarizing patient response rates and completeness of data collection; 11. clarification of the expected follow-up (if any), and the percentage of patients with incomplete data or follow-up.