Table 2: Quality of included studies in the analysis (n = 16).
Author, year |
Quality domain |
Overall Score |
||||||
|
Selection (Max score = 5) |
Comparability (Max = 2) |
Outcome (Max = 3) |
|
||||
|
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q5 |
Q6 |
Q7 |
|
Achiko, 2019 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★★ |
★ |
★ |
8 |
Asfawesen, 2018 |
★ |
★ |
- |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
6 |
Fekadu, 2006 |
★ |
★ |
- |
★ |
★★ |
★★ |
★ |
8 |
Kebede, 1997 |
★ |
- |
★ |
★ |
★★ |
★★ |
★ |
8 |
Ashenafi, 2001 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★★ |
★★ |
★ |
9 |
Mulatu, 1999 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★★ |
★ |
★ |
8 |
Desta, 2008 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★★ |
★★ |
★ |
9 |
Alem, 2006 |
★ |
- |
★ |
★ |
★★ |
★★ |
★ |
8 |
Nyundo, 2019 |
★ |
★ |
- |
★ |
- |
★ |
★ |
5 |
Nyundo, 2019 |
★ |
★ |
- |
★ |
- |
★ |
★ |
5 |
Asnake, 2016 |
★ |
- |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
6 |
Awas, 1999 |
★ |
- |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★★ |
★ |
7 |
Kebede, 2005 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★★ |
★ |
8 |
Wendemagegn, 2017 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
7 |
Kebede, 1999 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
7 |
Tafari, 1991 |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
★ |
7 |
Keys: A. Q1-Q7 represents questions used to assess the quality of included studies. Selection Q1. Representativeness of the sample: a) Truly representative of the average in the target population* (all subjects or random sampling); b) Somewhat representative of the average in the target population* (non-random sampling); c) Selected group of users. d) No description of the sampling strategy. Q2. Sample size: a) Justified & satisfactory*, b) Not justified. Q3. Non-respondents: a) Comparability between respondents and non-respondents characteristics is established, and the response rate is satisfactory*, b) The response rate is unsatisfactory, or the comparability between respondents and non-respondents is unsatisfactory, c) No description of the response rate or the characteristics of the responders and the non-responders. Q4. Ascertainment of the exposure/risk factor: Confounding factors are controlled. a) The study controls for the most important factor (select one)* b) The study control for any additional factor*. Comparability Q5. The subjects in different outcome groups are comparable, based on the study design (e. g. case or cohort) or analysis. a) Validated measurement tool. **, b) Non-validated measurement tool, but the tool is available or described.* c) No description of the measurement tool. Outcome Q6. Assessment of outcome: a) Independent blind assessment ** b) Record linkage** c) Self report * d) No description. Q7. Statistical test: a) is clearly described, appropriate, & measurement of association is presented, including confidence intervals & probability level (p value)* b) is not appropriate. |