TABLE 2.
Quality assessment of cross‐sectional studies
| Joanna Briggs Institute checklist question | Dye et al., 2020 | Elhadi et al., 2020 | Khanal et al., 2020 | Mostafa et al., 2020 | Wang et al., 2020 | Yadav et al., 2020 | Zandifar et al., 2020 | Zhu et al., 2020 | Adhikari et al., 2021 | Bitencourt et al., 2021 | Ghareeb et al., 2021 | Mohindra et al., 2021 | Özkan Şat et al., 2021 | Yang et al., 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
| 2 | Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 3 | Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
| 4 | Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 5 | Were confounding factors identified? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 6 | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
| 7 | Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 8 | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Overall appraisal | |||||||||||||||
| Include (Y total) | 8 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 8 | 8 | |
| Exclude (N total) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| Level of evidence | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | 4.c | |
Note: Y = 1; N = 0; 4.c = case series.