Table 1.
JBI Critical appraisal checklist for studies reporting prevalence data.
| No. | Author | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GATS 12 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| 2 | GATS 13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| 3 | Ngo 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| 4 | Rang 15 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| 5 | Suzuki 16 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| 6 | Dien 18 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| 7 | Dang 17 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
Criteria for the critical appraisal of evidence:
Q1: Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population?
Q2: Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way?
Q3: Was the sample size adequate?
Q4: Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
Q5: Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?
Q6: Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition?
Q7: Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?
Q8: Was there appropriate statistical analysis?
Q9: Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?