Table 4. Score of studies on each criterium for quality assessment score.
| Study | 1* | 2* | 3* | 4* | 5* | 6* | 7* | 8* | 9* | 10* | 11* | 12* | 13* | 14* | 15* | 16* | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chou et al. 2007[42] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 |
| Chou et al. 2007[41] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11 |
| Conde-Sala et. Al 2019 [43] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Dong et al. 2019 [30] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 |
| Forsell 2000 [40] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 12 |
| Gureje et al. 2011 [18] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 14 |
| Jaussent et al. 2011 [34] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Kim et al. 2006 [28] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Kim et al. 2009 [45] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 |
| Koizumi et al. 2005 [21] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Lampinen et al. 2003 [38] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Lue et al. 2010 [26] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 |
| Luppa et al. 2012 [37] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Lyness et al. 2009 [29] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Makizako et al. 2015 [24] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 |
| Mossaheb et al. 2009 [31] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 11 |
| Petersson et al. 2014 [39] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 11 |
| Schoevers et al 2005 [36] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 |
| Schoevers et al. 2000 [35] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 13 |
| Tani et al. 2016 [22] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 |
| Tsutsumoto et al. 2016 [25] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 |
| Uemura et al. 2018[23] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 |
| Weyerer et al. 2013 [2] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 |
| Yang et al. 2015 [27] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 |
| Yokohama et al. 2010 [44] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 |
| Misawa et al. [20] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 13 |
| Ryan et al. 2015 [14] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 |
| Ojagbemi et al. 2018 [19] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 14 |
| Carrière et al. 2013 [33] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 |
| Ancelin et al. 2010 [32] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 12 |
*Criteria in the columns
1) Study sample is nationally or regionally representative of the older population.
2) Sample inclusion and/or exclusion criteria are formulated.
3) Information on participants lost-to-follow-up is reported.
4) The process of data collection is described (e.g. interview or self-report).
5) Training and quality control methods for interviewers’ technique are applied.
6) Definition of the outcome criteria incident depression is provided: e.g. cut-off-score, measuring instrument for depression.
7) Descriptive data are provided on depression: e.g. number of incident cases.
8) Characteristics of study participants (socio-demographic, clinical, social) are given.
9) For each variable of interest, sources of data and details of methods of assessment are given.
10) Reliability and/or validity of study instruments is reported.
11) Detailed description of statistical analysis is given.
12) Adjustment for cognitive status in analyses is made (0 if no information is provided).
13) Individuals living with dementia are excluded from the analysis (0 if no information is provided).
14) Information on non-significant risk factor or protective factor variables is reported.
15) Precision of estimates is given (e.g. 95% confidence interval).
16) model is adjusted for potentially relevant cofounders.
1 = Criteria fulfilled; 0 = Criteria not fulfilled.