Table 3.
Cross sectional | Pitiphat et al. (31) | Sönmez et al. (32) | Souza et al. (33) | Allazzam et al. (35) | de Lima et al. (37) | Wollet et al. (40) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Selection (5 stars max) | ||||||
1) Is the case definition adequate? | * | * | * | * | * | * |
2) Sample | - | * | - | - | * | * |
3) Non-respondents | * | * | * | - | * | * |
4) Ascertainment of the exposure (risk factor) | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** | ** |
Comparability (2 stars max) | ||||||
1) The subjects in different outcome groups are comparable, based on the study design or analysis. confounding factors are controlled | * | ** | * | * | ** | * |
Outcome (3 stars max) | ||||||
1) Ascertainment of outcome | ** | ** | - | - | - | ** |
2) Statistical test | * | * | * | * | * | * |
The * and ** symbols indicate score that each article received in the quality assessment.