The quality and risk of bias assessment was conducted by the two researchers independently (KW and ET). The criteria of Kmet, Lee, and Cook (2004) were used for the quality evaluation of each study. The following quality criteria were used: (1) sufficient description of the research questions, (2) clarity and appropriateness of used design, (3) sufficient description of the methodology of participant selection or source of information, (4) sufficient description of sample characteristics, (5) definitions of measurements, (6) appropriate sample size, (7) justification of analytic methods used, (8) control for confounding factors, (9) sufficient detail of reported results, and (10) support for conclusions. A three-point rating scale was used for qualitative assessment (2—yes; 1—partial; 0—no). Unsuitable items were labeled “n/a” and excluded from the summary score (Kmet et al., 2004). We assumed a cut-off point for the inclusion of 65% (indicating a moderate-to-high quality) of the potential maximum score, which is recommended in the literature.

Note: The content above has been extracted from a research article, so it may not display correctly.



Q&A
Please log in to submit your questions online.
Your question will be posted on the Bio-101 website. We will send your questions to the authors of this protocol and Bio-protocol community members who are experienced with this method. you will be informed using the email address associated with your Bio-protocol account.



We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By using our website, you are agreeing to allow the storage of cookies on your computer.