Skip to main content
. 2021 Jun 2;26:61. doi: 10.1186/s12199-021-00983-9

Table 2.

Risk bias assessment of individual studies included for meta-analysis on prevalence of hepatitis B and C in Africa

Wow Year of publication Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Total score Risk of bias
Desalegn et al. [29] 2013 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 Moderate
Ziraba et al. [53] 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low
Mueller et al. [51] 2016 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Low
Nail et al. [50] 2008 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 High
Abdelwahab et al. [58] 2012 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 5 High
Braka et al. [28] 2006 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Low
Djeriri et al. [31] 2008 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Low
Ngekeng et al. [48] 2018 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 Moderate
Elmaghloub et al. [33] 2017 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 Moderate
Elmukashfi et al. [34] 2012 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 Moderate
Elduma and Saeed [36] 2006 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 Moderate
Fritzsche et al. [59] 2015 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 High
Gebremariam et al. [38] 2018 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Low
Munier et al. [63] 2013 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 Moderate
Kisangau et al. [57] 2018 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 Low
Jean-Baptiste et al. [61] 2018 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 4 Moderate
Souly et al. [64] 2016 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 Moderate
Orji et al. [47] 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Low
Yizengaw et al. [43] 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Low
Ndako et al. [49] 2014 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 Moderate
Elikwu et al. [32] 2016 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 Moderate
Geberemicheal et al. [37] 2013 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Low
Shao et al. [46] 2018 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 Low
Sondlane et al. [45] 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Low
Tatsilong et al. [44] 2016 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 Low
Kateera et al. [65] 2014 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 Low
Elbahrawy et al. [66] 2017 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Low
Akazong et al. [27] 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Low
Amiwero et al. [67] 2017 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 Low
Daw et al. [30] 2000 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 4 Moderate
Romieu et al. [54] 1989 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 6 High
Qin et al. [52] 2018 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Low
Elzouki et al. [35] 2014 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Low
Ndongo et al. [56] 2016 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Low
Vardas et al. [68] 2002 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 4 Moderate
Lungosi et al. [41] 2018 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 Low
Massaquoi et al. [39] 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Low
Mbaawuaga et al. [40] 2019 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Low
Sani et al. [69] 2011 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 High
Zayet et al. [72] 2015 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 6 High
Kefenie et al. [42] 1989 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Low
El-Sokkary et al. [70] 2017 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Low
Belo et al. [55] 2000 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 Moderate
Gyang et al. [73] 2017 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Low

The risk of bias was classified as either low (total score, 0 to 2), moderate (total score, 3 or 4), or high (total score, 5 to 9)

Q1 = Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population?

Q2 = Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way?

Q3 = Was the sample size adequate?

Q4 = Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?

Q5 = Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?

Q6 = Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition?

Q7 = Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?

Q8 = Was there appropriate statistical analysis?

Q9 = Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?