Table 1. Study quality assessed by the quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies.
| Author | Items of Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Total score | |
| Schaan et al. [36] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | 10/11 (91%) |
| Khan M et al. [32] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | 9/11 (82%) |
| Mark E and Janssen [37] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | 10/11 (91%) |
| Kang HT et al. [38] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | 10/11 (91%) |
| de Oliveira RG et al. [31] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | 10/11 (91%) |
| Siwarom S et al. [39] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | 9/11 (82%) |
| Hardy L et al. [40] | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | 8/11 (73%) |
| Fadzlina A et al. [41] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | N | 9/11 (82%) |
| Grøntved A et al. [42] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | 12/14 (86%) |
| de Castro Silveira et al. [43] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y | Y | N | Y | NA | NA | Y | 10/11 (91%) |
Total score, number of yes; NA not applicable, N, not present, Y, present.
Quality rating: poor <50%, Fair 50–75%, Good >75%