Tab 1.
Critical reading and assessment of methodological quality for cross-sectional studies.
| Main author, year and country | Study type | Participants (sample is adequate and similar to the general population, minimizing the probability of selection bias) | Statistical analysis and confusion (analysis is adequate and the possibility of confusion is minimized) | Summary assessment | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Internal validity (study design allows minimizing biases and the confounding effect | Overall study quality (quality of the evidence provided by the study): | ||
| Esteban, Et al, 2014, Spain (15) | Cross-sectional | B | MB | MB | NA | B | MB | B | B | B | high | high |
| Shahyad, Et al, 2018, Israel (16) | Cross-sectional | MB | B | B | MB | R | B | B | NA | B | high | medium |
| Yirga, Et al, 2016, Ethiopia (17) | Cross-sectional | MB | MB | MB | MB | B | B | B | B | B | high | high |
| Altamirano, Et al, 2011, Mexico (18) | Cross-sectional | MB | MB | MB | MB | B | B | MB | R | B | high | high |
| Fuentes, Et al, 2015, Spain (19) | Cross-sectional | MB | MB | MB | MB | B | MB | B | B | B | high | high |
| Lazo, Et al, 2015, Peru (20) | Analytical Cross-Sectional | MB | MB | MB | MB | B | MB | MB | MB | B | high | high |
| Moreno, Et al, 2017, Colombia (21) | Descriptive Cross-sectional | B | B | MB | B | B | B | B | B | B | high | high |
| Nuño, Et al, 2009, Mexico (22) | Analytical Cross-Sectional | B | B | MB | B | B | B | MB | MB | MB | high | high |
| Quiles, Et al, 2014, Spain (2. 3) | Cross-sectional | MB | MB | MB | MB | MB | MB | MB | MB | MB | high | high |
| Silva, Et al, 2017, Mexico (24) | Cross-sectional | MB | MB | MB | MB | MB | B | B | B | B | high | high |
| Sousa, Et al, 2013, Brazil (25) | Cross-sectional | B | B | MB | MB | MB | MB | MB | B | B | high | high |
| Cogollo, Et al, 2012, Colombia (26) | Cross-Sectional Analytical Observational | B | B | MB | MB | MB | MB | MB | B | B | high | high |
| Caldera, Et al, 2019, Mexico (27) | Cross-sectional | B | B | B | B | B | B | B | NA | B | medium | medium |
| Reina, Et al, 2013, USA (28) | Cross-sectional | B | B | R | NA | B | B | B | NA | B | medium | medium |
| Laporta, Et al, 2020, Spain (29) | Cross-sectional Quantitative, Descriptive, Retrospective | B | MB | B | B | B | B | B | B | NI | medium | medium |
| Vara, Et al, 2011, Spain (30) | Cross-sectional | B | B | B | B | R | R | B | B | B | medium | medium |
| Sousa, Et al, 2014, Spain (31) | Cross-sectional | B | B | MB | B | B | R | B | R | R | medium | medium |
| Castaño, Et al, 2012, Colombia (32) | Cross-sectional | B | NI | B | B | R | B | B | R | B | medium | medium |
| Rutsztein, Et al, 2014, Argentina (33) | Cross-sectional, Descriptive | B | R | B | R | R | R | B | R | B | Low | Low |
Note. Internal validity. It defines whether the study design allows minimizing biases and the confounding effect (12).
The Items used were:
2. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of participants are indicated, as well as the sources and selection methods.
3. The selection criteria are adequate to answer the question or the objective of the study.
4. The study population, defined by the selection criteria, contains an adequate spectrum of the population of interest.
5. An estimate was made of the size, the level of confidence or the statistical power of the sample to estimate the measures of frequency or association that the study intended to obtain.
6. The number of potentially eligible people is reported, those initially selected, those who accept and those who finally participate or respond; fifteen. Statistical analysis was determined from the beginning of the study.
16. The statistical tests used are specified and appropriate
17. Participant losses, lost data or others were correctly treated
18. The main possible confounding elements were taken into account in the design and in the analysis.
Assessment: MB=very good; B=good; R=regular; NA=not applicable; NI=no information.