Table 2 Quality evaluation and risk of bias assessment of included literature.

First author	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	Score
Chen ZY²⁷	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	–	Yes	–	7
Du WJ²⁸	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	–	Yes	–	6
Li J²⁹	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	–	Yes	–	6
Liu F³¹	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	–	Yes	–	6
Qin P³²	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	–	Yes	–	6
Rina³³	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	–	Yes	–	6
Song X³⁴	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	–	Yes	–	6
Sun ZY³⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	–	Yes	–	7
Zhao XY³⁷	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	–	Yes	–	6
Li WJ³⁰	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	–	Yes	–	6
Cao W²⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	–	Yes	–	7
Bao CC²⁵	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	–	Yes	–	7
Xu YS³⁶	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	–	Yes	–	6

Replace unclear; 1 define the source of information(survey, record review); 2 list inclusion and exclusion criteria for exposed and unexposed subjects(cases and controls) or refer to previous publications; 3 indicate time period used for identifying patients; 4 indicate whether or not subjects were consecutive if not population-based; 5 indicate if evaluators of subjective components of study were masked to other aspects of the status of the participants; 6 describe any assessments undertaken for quality assurance purposes (e.g., test/retest of primary outcome measurements); 7 explain any patient exclusion from analysis; 8 describe how confounding was assessed and/or controlled; 9 if applicable, explain how missing data were handle in the analysis; 10 summarize patient response rates and completeness of data collection; 11 clarify what follow-up, if any, was expected and the percentage of patients for which incomplete data or follow-up was obtained.

Quick links

Search