Skip to main content
. 2020 Aug 31;111(4):269–284. doi: 10.23749/mdl.v111i4.9045

Table 4.

Quality assessment of the studies included in the review

Authors, year Design and materials Consideration of potential confounders Measurement of outcome Measurement of exposure Data presentation and statistical analysis Quality assessment score Total score
Chodick, 2008 2 3 1 2 3 11 +++
Milacic, 2009 1 1 3 2 2 9 ++
Ciraj-bjelac, 2010 2 1 3 2 2 10 ++
Vano, 2010 2 1 3 2 2 10 ++
Yuan, 2010 1 1 1 1 1 5 +
Mrena, 2011 2 3 3 2 2 12 +++
Ciraj-bjelac, 2012 2 1 3 2 1 9 ++
Jacob, 2013 2 3 3 2 3 13 +++
Vano, 2013 2 1 3 3 2 11 +++
Auvinen, 2015 2 1 3 2 2 10 ++
Bitarafan Rajabi, 2015 2 1 2 2 2 9 ++
Negrone, 2016 1 2 1 3 1 8 ++
Bernier, 2017 2 3 1 2 2 10 ++
Matsubara, 2017 2 1 2 2 2 9 ++
Barbosa, 2018 2 2 3 1 2 10 ++
Coppeta, 2018 1 1 3 3 2 10 ++
Little, 2018 3 3 1 2 3 12 +++
Domienik-Andrzejewska, 2019 2 3 3 2 2 12 +++
Scheidemann-Wesp, 2019 2 1 3 2 2 10 ++
Velazquez-Kronen, 2019 3 2 1 2 3 11 +++
Little, 2020 3 3 1 2 3 13 +++