Table 4.
Risk of bias
| ARHQ Methodology Checklist | Al-Dabagh et al. 2014 | Armstrong et al. 2017 | Augustin et al. 2011 | Babino et al. 2016 | Brody, 1966 | Carubbi et al. 2016 | Coates, 2016 | Cohen, 1959 | Dubreuil et al. 2014 | Eun et al. 2017 | Ganeva et al. 2007 | Grassi, 1998 | Gregoire, 2021 | Gupta and Gupta, 2007 | Haroon et al. 2018 | Kavanaugh et al. 2018 | Lee et al. 2016 | Madland et al. 2005 | Rice et al. 2018 | Saviola et al. 2007 | Sinnathurai et al. 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Define source of information (survey, record review). | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 2. List inclusion and exclusion criteria for exposed and unexposed subjects (cases and controls) or refer to previous publications. | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 3. Indicate time period used for identifying patients. | + | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | + | – | + |
| 4. Indicate whether or not subjects were consecutive, if not population based. | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | – | + |
| 5. Indicate if evaluators of subjective components of study were masked to other aspects of the status of the participants. | NA | NA | NA | – | – | + | – | + | NA | NA | – | NA | – | – | – | NA | NA | NA | NA | – | NA |
| 6. Describe any assessments undertaken for quality assurance purposes (e.g. test/retest of primary outcome measurements). | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 7. Explain any patient exclusions from analysis. | + | – | + | + | – | + | – | – | + | + | + | – | + | + | – | – | + | – | + | + | – |
| 8. Describe how confounding was assessed and/or controlled. | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | – | – | – | – |
| 9. If applicable, explain how missing data were handled in the analysis. | NA | NA | NA | – | – | + | – | – | + | NA | – | – | – | – | + | – | – | – | NA | – | – |
| 10. Summarize patient response rates and completeness of data collection. | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + |
| 11. Clarify what follow-up, if any, was expected and the percentage of patients for which incomplete data or follow-up was obtained. | NA | NA | NA | NA | – | + | + | – | + | NA | – | NA | – | – | – | NA | NA | NA | NA | + | NA |
| Total score | 7 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
The quality of included articles was assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodology checklist for cross-sectional and prevalence studies. Article quality was assessed as follows: low quality = 0–3; moderate quality = 4–7; high quality = 8–11. Yes = +; No = –; Not applicable/Not specified = NA.