S.N | Authors | Year | Study design | Rationale for exclusion |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Cykert, D. M., et al | 2017 | Cross-sectional | The exposure measured was not clearly defined in a valid and reliable way and the standard criteria used for the measurement of the outcomes was unclear |
2 | Rani, M., et al | 2019 | Cross-sectional | The study subjects and setting were not clearly described. Confounding factors were not mentioned by the authors |
3 | Babenko, A. Y., et al | 2019 | Cross-sectional | The methodology provided no details on the study subjects and setting. The study lacked details on confounding factors |
4 | Haidari, F., et al | 2017 | Cross-sectional | The standard criteria for measuring the outcomes and confounding factors were not clear or identified |
5 | Pati, S., et al | 2020 | Cross-sectional | The exposure and outcomes variables were not measured in a valid and reliable way |
6 | Thapa, S., et al | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Confounding factors and strategies used to deal with these were not identified in this study. The methodology did not provide clear details on the study participants and setting |
7 | Sionti, V., et al | 2019 | Cross-sectional | Unclear inclusion criteria, study setting, confounding factors, and statistical analysis |
8 | Altınok, A., et al | 2016 | Cross-sectional | There were no proper details on the study participant, setting, and any confounding factors |
9 | Mikailiūkštienė, A., et al | 2013 | Cross-sectional | The standard criteria for the measurement of the outcome variables were unclear and there were no details on the study subjects and setting |
10 | Dalal, J., et al | 2020 | Cross-sectional | There were no confounding factors identified. Unclear outcomes measurement and statistical analysis |
11 | Nyoni, A. M., et al | 2018 | Cross-sectional | There were no standard criteria used for measuring the outcomes variables and limited details on the study participants and setting |
12 | Olukotun, O., et al | 2022 | Cross-sectional | There were no confounding factors identified and the study setting was not clearly mentioned |
13 | Sato, M. and Y. Yamazaki | 2012 | Cross-sectional | The validity and reliability for measuring the outcomes were unclear and there were no confounding factors identified |
14 | Walker, R. J., et al | 2014 | Cross-sectional | The strategies for dealing with confounding factors as well as what was used as the standard criteria for measuring the outcomes variables were unclear |
15 | Baruah, M. P., et al | 2021 | Cross-sectional | The exposure and outcomes were not measured in a valid and reliable way. The study setting was unclear and no identification of confounding factors |
16 | Hu, F., et al | 2015 | Cross-sectional | Unclear inclusion criteria for the studied population and strategies for identifying the confounding factors |
17 | Hashimoto, Y., et al | 2020 | Cross-sectional | There were unclear inclusion criteria and no appropriate information about identifying the confounding factors |
18 | Abraham, A. M., et al | 2020 | Randomized clinical trial | There was no true randomization used for assignment of participants to treatment groups. Allocation concealment was not done |
19 | Kempf, K. and S. Martin | 2013 | Randomized clinical trial | The trial design was not appropriate and there was no detailed information about any deviations from the standard trial design accounted for the conduct and analysis of the trial |
20 | Ebrahimi, H., et al | 2018 | Randomized clinical trial | There was no information as to whether the outcomes assessors were blinded to the intervention or not. Unclear baseline similarity in the two groups. The outcome measurements were not clearly conducted in a reliable way |
21 | Costa, M. S. A., et al | 2020 | Cohort | Unclear whether the groups or the participants were free of the outcomes or not at the baseline of the study. There were no clear strategies to address the incomplete data |