First authors | Year | Country | Study type | Item | Total score | Quality |
|---|
A | B | C | D | E | F | J | H | I | J | K |
|---|
Khan | 2018 | Bangladesh | Cross-sectional study | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | Moderate |
Muñoz | 2018 | Chile | Cross-sectional study | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 | Moderate |
Zhang | 2021 | China | Cross-sectional study | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 | High |
Liang | 2023 | China | Cross-sectional study | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 | High |
- A: Define the source of information (0/1 point); B: List inclusion and exclusion criteria for exposed and unexposed subjects (cases and controls) or refer to previous publications (0/1 point); C: Indicate time period used for identifying patients (0/1 point); D: Indicate whether or not subjects were consecutive if not population based (0/1 point); E: Indicate if evaluators of subjective components of study were masked to other aspects of the status of the participants (0/1 point); F: Describe any assessments undertaken for quality assurance purposes (0/1 point); G: Explain any patient exclusions from analysis (0/1 point); H: Describe how confounding was assessed and/or controlled (0/1 point); I: If applicable, explain how missing data were handled in the analysis (0/1 point); J: Summarize patient response rates and completeness of data collection (0/1 point); K: Clarify what follow-up, if any, was expected and the percentage of patients for which incomplete data or follow-up was obtained (0/1 point)
