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