Table 1.
The assessment quality for potential risk of bias
| Author (year) | Checklist questions | Score | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ||
| Bystritsky & Shapiro, (1992) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 13/16 | |||
| Piccirillo et al., (1997) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 13/16 | |||
| Carels et al., (2000) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 13/16 | |||
| Virtanen et al., (2003) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Otsuka et al., (2004) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 10/16 | ||||||
| Yeragani et al., 2004) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 12/16 | ||||
| Davydov et al., (2007) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Martinez et al., (2010) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 12/16 | ||||
| Vasudev et al., (2011) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 13/16 | |||
| Alici et al., (2014) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 8/16 | ||||||||
| Phillip J. Tully & Tzourio, (2017) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 14/16 | ||
| Philip J. Tully, Debette, & Tzourio, (2017) | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | / | 13/16 | |||
| Number of fulfilling each item | 12 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 10 | 0 | 12 | 2 | 12 | 3 | 10 | 12 | 11 | 11 | 8 | |
| Percentage (%) | 100 | 91.7 | 91.7 | 100 | 100 | 83.3 | 0 | 100 | 16.7 | 100 | 25 | 83.3 | 100 | 91.7 | 91.7 | 66.7 | |
Quality Assessments Questions
Introduction
1.Does the abstract provide an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found?
2.Are the primary outcomes to be measured clearly stated in the Introduction section?
3.Is the study's hypothesis and objectives clearly stated?
Methodology
4.Does the study clearly describe the methodology/protocol of studies which includes the setting, locations, periods of recruitment and data collection?
5.Does the characteristics of participants included in the study clearly described?
6.Does the distributions of outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers in each group of subjects to be compared clearly described?
7.Is the calculation of study size/sample size reported?
8.Were the statistical tests used to access the main outcomes appropriate?
9.Does any missing data were addressed in the study?
Results
10.Does the study reported the number of individuals included in the study?
11.Does the study clearly indicate the characteristics of study participants (demographic) including the number of missing data for each variable of interest?
12.Are the main findings of the study clearly described?
Discussion
13.Does the study summarise the key results with reference to study objectives?
14.Does the study discussed the limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias?
15.Does the study interpreted overall results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses and results from similar studies/relevant evidence?
Other Information
16.Does the study state the source of funding or the role of funders for the present study?