Table 2.

Information about risk of bias assessments in this examination of assessor burden and inter-rater agreement.

Systematic review topic	Publications	No. of assessors who provided RoB assessmentsa	No. of studies included in each SR	No. of studies and assessments included and excluded
The prevalence of occupational exposure to ergonomic risk factors	Protocol and systematic review: Hulshof et al., 2019, Hulshof et al., 2021a	5	5	Included: 6 assessments for 3 studies Excluded: 2 studies •Only one RoB-SPEO assessment returned – 1 studyb •No RoB-SPEO assessment returned – 1 study
The prevalence of occupational exposure to silica, asbestos and coal dust	Protocol and systematic review: Mandrioli et al., 2018; Schlünssen et al., in preparation	10	88	Included: 116 assessments for 54 studies Excluded: 34 studies •Assessments made at study record level − 28 assessments for 8 studiesc •Only one RoB-SPEO assessment returned – 22 studiesb •No RoB-SPEO assessment returned – 4 studies
The prevalence of occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation	Protocol: Paulo et al., 2019	6	41	Included: 63 assessments for 31 studies Excluded: 10 studies •Only one RoB-SPEO assessment returned – 8 studiesb •No RoB-SPEO assessment returned – 2 studies
The prevalence of occupational exposure to noise	Protocol and systematic review: Teixeira et al., 2019, Teixeira et al., 2021a	8	65	Included: 98 assessments for 49 studies Excluded: No RoB-SPEO assessment returned – 16 studies

^aTwo individuals were assessors for two systematic reviews; hence there were a total of 27 individual assessors across the four systematic reviews.

^bOnly receiving one RoB-SPEO assessment for a study meant that it was not possible to assess inter-rater agreement.

^cAssessments were made at the study record level, not the study level.