Table 1.
Interrater agreement testing between two raters in using the risk of bias tool.
| Sl. no. | Validation procedures | Author 1* | Author 2* | KAPPA (95%CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| External validation | ||||
| 1 | Was the study's target population representative of the national population with respect to relevant variables? | 4.41 | 4.46 | 0.601 (0.44: 0.74) |
| 2 | How were the samples selected, randomly or was census undertaken? | 4.39 | 4.34 | 0.821 (0.69:0.94) |
| 3 | Was the probability of bias minimal? | 4.44 | 4.38 | 0.700 (0.52:0.87) |
| Internal validation | ||||
| 4 | Was the data collected directly from the subjects? | 4.19 | 4.30 | 0.786 (0.64:0.92) |
| 5 | Was an acceptable case definition used in the study? | 4.44 | 4.49 | 0.791 (0.66:0.92) |
| 6 | Was the used study method to measure parameter valid and reliable? | 4.38 | 4.34 | 0.840 (0.73:0.96) |
| 7 | Was the same mode of data collection used? | 4.49 | 4.33 | 0.805 (0.67:0.93) |
| 8 | Summary on the overall risk of study bias | 4.15 | 4.39 | 0.762 (0.58:0.94) |
*
Average score of two independent authors and Kappa Index (95%CI) score of 80 articles included for meta-analysis.