Table 3.
Quality of the studies based on the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for observational studies.
| Author, year (Country) | Selection | Confounding factor | Outcome | Total score (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | ||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||
| Cui et al,3 2017 (China) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 (75) | |
| Fahim,5 2013 (Egypt) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 (75) | |
| Bates et al,4 2012 (USA) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 (88) | |
| Puriene et al,16 2007 (Lithuania) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 (75) | |
| Jeong et al,15 2006 (South Korea) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 (88) | |
| Baran,20 2005 (USA) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 (75) | |
| Roth et al,14 2003 (Canada) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 (75) | |
| Well and Winter,21 1999 (USA) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 (75) | |
| Shugars et al,13 1990 (USA) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 (88) | |
| 9 (100) | 4 (44) | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | 9 (100) | 8 (89) | 0 (0) | |||
| Methodological appraisal score (%) | ||||||||||
| Bad | Satisfactory | Good | ||||||||
| 0-33 | 34-66 | 67-100 | ||||||||
Criteria: (1) Sample size calculation. (2) Representativeness of the study sample. (3) Ascertainment of the assessment tool for the dentist satisfaction survey. (4) Response rate. (5) Consideration of important confounding factors at the start of the study. (6) Ascertainment of the assessment tool for overall job satisfaction and related factors. (7) Performance of statistical adjustment. (8) Independent blind assessment for overall job satisfaction and related factors.
NA = not applicable.
Items with NA were not included when calculating percentages in each item.