Table 4.

Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) [50].

	Doni B R et al. [21]
	YES	NOT	Do not know/comment
Introduction
1 Were the aims/objectives of the study clear?	+
Methods
2 Was the study design appropriate for the stated aim(s)?	+
3 Was the sample size justified?	+
4 Was the target/reference population clearly defined? (Is it clear who the research was about?)	+
5 Was the sample frame taken from an appropriate population base so that it closely represented the target/reference population under investigation?	+
6 Was the selection process likely to select subjects/participants that were representative of the target/reference population under investigation?	+
7 Were measures undertaken to address and categorise non-responders?	+		+
8 Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured appropriate to the aims of the study?	+
9 Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured correctly using instruments/measurements that had been trialled, piloted or published previously?	+		+
10 Is it clear what was used to determined statistical significance and/or precision estimates? (eg, p values, CIs)
11 Were the methods (including statistical methods) sufficiently described to enable them to be repeated?
Results
12 Were the basic data adequately described?	+
13 Does the response rate raise concerns about non-response bias?			+
14 If appropriate, was information about non-responders described?		+
15 Were the results internally consistent?	+
16 Were the results for the analyses described in the methods, presented?	+
Discussion
17 Were the authors' discussions and conclusions justified by the results?	+
18 Were the limitations of the study discussed?		+
Other
19 Were there any funding sources or conflicts of interest that may affect the authors' interpretation of the results?		+
20 Was ethical approval or consent of participants attained?	+