Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality assessment of cross-sectional studies included in review

From: Frequency patterns of core constipation symptoms among the Asian adults: a systematic review

Study Selectiona Confoundersb Outcomec Total star Qualityd
Xin et al. (2014) * * * 3/6 Satisfactory
Zhao et al. (2011) * * * * 4/6 Good
Dong et al. (2013) * * * 3/6 Satisfactory
Yao et al. (2012) * * * 3/6 Satisfactory
Lu et al. (2006) * * * * 4/6 Good
Lee et al. (2014) * * * 3/6 Satisfactory
Gonlachanvit & Patcharatrakul (2005) * * * 3/6 Satisfactory
Kaboli et al. (2010) * * * * * 5/6 Very good
Shalmani et al. (2011) * * * * * 5/6 Very good
Roshandel et al. (2006) * * * * 4/6 Good
  1. aSelection category included assessment of representativeness of sample, non-respondents and ascertainment of constipation
  2. bConfounders category included assessment of most important confounding factor and any additional factor
  3. cOutcome category included assessment of outcome whether blinded, record-linkage, self-report or no/not clear description
  4. dQuality of studies based on total stars given for all three assessed categories:
  5. 5 to 6 *: Very good studies
  6. 4 *: Good studies
  7. 3 *: Satisfactory studies
  8. 0 to 2 *: Unsatisfactory studies