Skip to main content

Table 1 Risk of bias assessment of eligible articles using the hoy 2012 tool

From: Prevalence of goiter among children in Ethiopia and associated factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

NO

Study ID

Representation

Sampling

Random selection

Non response bias

Data collection

Case Definition

Reliability and validity of study tool

Method of data collection

Prevalence period

Numerator and denominator

Summary Assessment

1

Cherinet et al.

High risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

High risk

High risk

low risk

Low risk

High risk

2

Cherinet et al.

High risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

High risk

High risk

low risk

Low risk

High risk

3

Berhanu et al.

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

4

Girma et al.

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

5

Mezgebu et al.

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

High risk

High risk

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

6

Wolka E et al.

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

7

Gebriel et al.

High risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Medium risk

8

Mesele et al.

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

9

Aweke KA et al.

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

10

Kibatu et al.

High risk

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

11

Enyew et al.

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

12

Hailu et al.

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

13

Sime HK et al.

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

High risk

High risk

High risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

High risk

14

Solomon E.

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

15

Muleta et al.

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

16

Hibstu DT et al.

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

17

Tigabu E et al.

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

18

Ahmed A et al.

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

19

Abebe et al.

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

High risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Low risk

Medium risk

  1. Risk of bias assessment tool: Yes (low risk); No (high risk)
  2. 1. Representation: Was the study population a close representation of the national population?
  3. 2. Sampling: Was the sampling frame a true or close representation of the target population?
  4. 3. Random selection: Was some form of random selection used to select the sample OR was a census undertaken?
  5. 4. Non-response bias: Was the likelihood of non-response bias minimal?
  6. 5. Data collection: Were data collected directly from the subjects?
  7. 6. Case definition: Was an acceptable case definition used in the study?
  8. 7. Reliability and validity of study tool: Was the study instrument that measured the parameter of interest show to have reliability and validity?
  9. 8. Data collection: Was the same mode of data collection used for all subjects?
  10. 9. Prevalence period: Was the length of the prevalence period for the parameter of interest appropriate?
  11. 10. Numerators and denominators: Were the numerator(s) and denominator(s) for the parameter of interest appropriate?
  12. The overall risk of bias scored based on the number of high risk of bias per study: low risk (≤2), moderate risk (3–4), and high risk (≥5)