Table 3.
Critical appraisal
| Study | A) Are the results of the study valid? | B) What are the results | C) Will the results help locally | Total score | Article quality | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Question 1 | Question 2 | Question 3 | Question 4 | Question 5 | Question 6 | Question 7 | Question 8 | Question 9 | Question 10 | Question 11 | Question 12 | ||||
| Did the study address a clearly focused issue? | Was the cohort recruited in an acceptable way? | Is it worth continuing? | Was the exposure accurately measured to minimise bias? | Was the outcome accurately measured to minimise bias? | a) Did the authors identified all important confounding factors? b) Have they taken account of the confounding factors in the design and/or analysis | a) Was the follow up of subjects complete enough? b) Was the follow up of subjects long enough? | What are the results of this study? | How precise are the results? | Do you believe the results? | Can the results be applied to the local population? | Do the results of this study fit with other available evidence? | What are the implications of this study for practice? | |||
| score | score | score | score | score | score | score | score | score | score | score | score | ||||
| Song et al | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | moderate |
| Han et al | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | low |
| Kong et al | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 | high |
| Maruyama et al | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 | high |
| Namieno et al | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 9 | high |