Skip to main content

Table 3 Risk of bias assessed by the “The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews”

From: External control of fluoridation in the public water supplies of Brazilian cities as a strategy against caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study [ref]

Q.1

Q.2

Q.3

Q.4

Q.5

Q.6

Q.7

Q.8

Q.9

% yes/risk

Maia et al. [31]

N/A

100%/low

Lima et al. [36]

U

--

N/A

75%/low

Moura et al. [26]

--

U

--

N/A

62.5%/moderate

Piva et al. [37]

N/A

87.5%/low

Amaral et al. [32]

--

N/A

75%/low

Silva et al. [30]

--

N/A

100%/low

Panizzi et al. [38]

U

--

N/A

75%/low

Saliba et al. [33]

--

N/A

75%/low

Peixoto et al. [29]

--

--

N/A

75%/low

Moimaz et al. [34]

--

--

N/A

75%/low

Assaf et al. [35]

--

NA

87.5%/low

Bergamo et al. [17]

--

N/A

87.5%/low

Brito et al. [39]

U

--

--

N/A

75%/low

Kuhnen et al. [40]

U

N/A

87.5%/low

  1. Q.1—Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population? Q.2—Were study participants recruited in an appropriate way? Q.3—Was the sample size adequate? Q.4—Were the study subjects and setting described in detail? Q.5—Was data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the sample identified? Q.6—Were valid methods used to identify the condition? Q.7—Was the condition measured in a standard and reliable way for all participants? Q.8—Was there appropriate statistical analysis? Q.9—Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately? √—Yes; --—no; U—unclear; NA—not applicable