Skip to main content
. 2022 Nov 5;10(1):100163. doi: 10.1016/j.apjon.2022.100163

Table 3.

Critical appraisal of included studies.

Study (Reference) Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Total score Quality rating
Hung et al., 201835 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 6 Moderate
Jiao et al., 202036 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 Moderate
Zhang et al., 201037 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 Moderate
Zhu et al., 200938 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 Moderate
Cong et al., 201839 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 Moderate
Hu et al., 201240 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 Moderate
Luo et al., 201141 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 Moderate
Wu et al., 201742 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 Moderate
Xu et al., 201743 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 Moderate
Zhang et al., 201444 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 Moderate
Wang et al., 201445 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 6 Moderate
Lou et al., 201446 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 Moderate

Item 1: Define the source of information (survey, record review); Item 2: List inclusion and exclusion criteria for exposed and unexposed subjects (cases and controls) or refer to previous publications; Item 3: Indicate time period used for identifying patients; Item 4: Indicate whether or not subjects were consecutive if not population-based; Item 5: Indicate if evaluators of subjective components of study were masked to other aspects of the status of the participants; Item 6: Describe any assessments undertaken for quality assurance purposes (eg, test/retest of primary outcome measurements); Item 7: Explain any patient exclusions from analysis; Item 8: Describe how confounding was assessed and/or controlled; Item 9: If applicable, explain how missing data were handled in the analysis; Item 10: Summarize patient response rates and completeness of data collection; Item 11: Clarify what follow-up, if any, was expected and the percentage of patients for which incomplete data or follow-up was obtained.