Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of assessment of methodological quality of observational studies using standardised critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs institute

From: Effectiveness of primary school-based interventions in improving oral health of children in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study Quality assessment domains
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
de Sousa et al. [52, 38] 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1
Lai et al. [37, 39] 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1
Monse et al. [22, 24] 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2
Yusof et al. [50, 36] 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1
  1. Key: 1 Yes; 2 No; 3 Unclear
  2. Domain 1: Were the two groups similar and recruited from the same population?
  3. Domain 2: Were the exposures measured similarly to assign people to both exposed and unexposed groups?
  4. Domain 3: Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way?
  5. Domain 4: Were confounding factors identified?
  6. Domain 5: Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated?
  7. Domain 6: Were the participants free of the outcome at the start of the study?
  8. Domain 7: Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way?
  9. Domain 8: Was the follow up time reported and long enough for outcomes to occur?
  10. Domain 9: Was follow up complete, and if not, were the reasons to loss to follow up described and explored?
  11. Domain 10: Were strategies to address incomplete follow up utilized?
  12. Domain 11: Was appropriate statistical analysis used?