Table 3.

Risk of bias assessed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for use in JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies²⁷

Authors	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	% Yes	Risk
Carvalho et al., 1990	-	√	√	√	√	√	-	√	87.5	Low
Eid et al., 2002	-	√	√	√	-	-	√	√	62.5	Moderate
Kurita et al., 2007	√	√	√	√	-	-	√	√	75	Moderate
Maia et al., 2010	√	√	√	√	-	√	√	√	100	Low
Oliveira et al., 2010	√	√	√	√	-	-	√	√	75	Moderate
Fernandes et al., 2011	√	-	√	√	√	√	√	√	87.5	Low
Franco et al., 2013	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	100	Low
Vieira et al., 2016	√	-	√	√	√	√	√	√	87.5	Low
Benedicto et al., 2018	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	100	Low
Lopes et al., 2018	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	100	Low
Machado et al., 2018	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	100	Low
Mazzili et al., 2018	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	100	Low
Da Luz et al., 2019	-	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	87.5	Low

Q1. Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? Q2. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? Q3. Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? Q4. Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? Q5. Were confounding factors identified? Q6. Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? Q7. Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? Q8. Was appropriate statistical analysis used? √: Yes; -: No.