Table 2.

Quality index of the included studies

Reference no.	[2]	[33]	[34]	[35]	[36]	[37]	[7]	[38]	[8]	[20]	[39]	[40]	[22]	[41]	[42]	[43]	[44]	[23]	[6]	[45]	[9]	[46]	[5]	[47]	[48]	[49]	[50]	[19]	[51]	[52]	[53]	[24]
Questions
1. A comprehensive definition of diabetes was given?	×	×	×	×	×	√	×	±	×	×	×	×	√	×	×	±	×	×	×	×	×	×	×	±	×	×	×	±	×	×	×	±
2. The research question of the study was mentioned?	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
3. Epidemiological definition such as type of diabetes (1 and 2) studied was provided?	√	×	√	√	×	×	√	√	×	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	×	√	×	×	×	√	√	√	√	×	×	×
4. Complications associated with diabetes were clearly stated?	√	√	×	×	√	×	√	×	×	×	√	×	×	×	×	√	×	×	×	×	√	√	×	√	×	×	×	×	√	×	×	×
5. The location of the study respondent was clearly defined?	√	√	±	√	√	√	√	±	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	±	√	±	√	√	±	√	√	√	√	√	√	±	±	±	×
6. The sampling technique for data collection was well-defined?	√	±	√	√	±	×	√	√	√	√	±	√	√	√	√	√	±	±	√	±	±	√	√	√	√	±	±	√	√	√	√	±
7. The sample size of the study was adequate?	±	±	√	√	±	±	√	±	±	±	±	±	±	√	±	√	±	±	√	±	√	±	√	±	√	±	√	±	√	√	√	×
8. Tools and techniques of the study were lucidly defined?	√	√	±	√	±	±	±	±	√	√	±	±	√	±	±	±	√	√	√	√	±	√	√	±	√	√	√	±	√	√	√	±
9. Cost of diabetes was properly classified?	√	√	√	√	±	√	±	√	±	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	±	√	±	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
10. The findings of the study were clearly discussed?	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Total score of the studies reviewed
Yes (√)	8	6	6	8	4	5	7	5	5	7	5	6	8	7	6	8	5	6	5	6	5	7	7	6	7	6	7	6	8	6	6	3
No (×)	1	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	3	2	2	2	1	2	2	0	2	2	3	2	2	1	3	1	3	2	2	1	1	3	3	4
Moderately available (±)	1	2	2	0	4	2	2	4	2	1	3	2	1	1	2	2	3	2	2	2	3	2	0	3	0	2	1	3	1	1	1	3

Source: Authors’ compilation established on reviewed articles