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