Table 3.
NOS for risk of bias assessment of included cross‐sectional studies
| Study | Domains a | Results b | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection (5) | Comparability (2) | Outcome (3) | Score (10) | Risk | |
| Harita et al. 23 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | Low |
| Smith et al. 41 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 7 | Low |
| Moon et al. 22 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | Low |
| Gopinath et al. 39 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | Low |
| Ho et al. 40 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | Low |
| Vancampfort et al. 38 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | Moderate |
| Li et al. 29 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | Low |
| Mikkola et al. 30 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | Moderate |
| Huang et al. 28 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 | Low |
| Miyata et al. 31 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 8 | Low |
a
Domains of Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS): Selection (representativeness of the sample; sample size; non‐respondents; and ascertainment of the exposure); Comparability (confounding factors are controlled); and Outcome (assessment of outcome; and statistical test).
b
Studies were categorized as high (<5), moderate (5–7), or low risk of bias (≥8) on the scale of 0 to 10 for cross‐sectional studies.