Table 5.
Quality appraisal of quantitative studies.
| Yes (n total =14) | Yun 2018 | Astrow 2018 | Delgado 2016 | Uitdehaag 2015 | Effendy 2015 | Dedeli 2015 | Vilalta 2014 | Höcker 2014 | Pearce 2012 | Fitch 2012 | Ugalde 2012 | Ben Natan 2010 | Rainbird 2009 | Cheng 2008 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? | 12 | Y | Y | U | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? | 14 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Was the exposure measured validly and reliably? | 10 | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | U | U |
| Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? | 14 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Were confounding factors identified? | 10 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | U | U | U |
| Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | 6 | Y | Y | U | U | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | U | U | U | U | U |
| Were the outcomes measured validly and reliably? | 14 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Was an appropriate statistical analysis used? | 14 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Total score out of 8 | 7,5 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 7,5 | 8 | 8 | 7,5 | 7 | 6,5 | 6,5 | 6,5 |
Y : yes; N : no; U : unclear.