樱花视频

Skip to main content

Table聽3 Results of assessment of the methodological quality of included meta-analysis

From: The prevalence of obesity and overweight among Iranian population: an umbrella systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

Q11

Q12

Q13

Q14

Q15

Q16

Quality assessment

Mirzazadeh et al., 2009 [26]

Partial Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Moderate

Ng et al., 2013 [27]

Partial Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Low

Mirzazadeh et al., 2013 [28]

Partial Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Moderate

Jafari-Adli et al., 2014 [8]

Partial Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Partial Yes

No

Yes

Low

Kelishadi et al., 2014 [29]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Low

Rahmani et al., 2014 [30]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Moderate

Ghanbari et al., 2016 [31]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Moderate

Fallahzadeh et al., 2017 [32]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Low

Khazaei et al., 2017 [33]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Moderate

Khazaei et al., 2017 [34]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Mohammadi et al., 2018 [35]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

No

No

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Fakhri et al., 2019 [36]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Moderate

Mansori et al., 2019 [37]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Salimi et al., 2019 [38]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Moderate

Vaisi-Raygani et al., 2019 [39]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Moderate

Sarokhani et al., 2020 [40]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Moderate

Hosseini et al., 2021 [41]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Moderate

Djalalinia et al., 2021 [42]

Yes

Partial Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Low

Akbari et al., 2022 [15]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Moderate

Saeidi et al., 2022 [43]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Partial Yes

Moderate

Shirzadeh et al., 2021 [7]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

Partial Yes

Moderate

Okati-Aliabad et al., 2022 [44]

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Partial Yes

Moderate

Abiri et al., 2023 [13]

Yes

Partial Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Moderate

Hojjati et al., 2023 [45]

Yes

Partial Yes

Partial Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

  1. 1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? 2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 11. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? 12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? 13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 15. If they performed quantitative synthesis, did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? 16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?, Each question was answered with 鈥淵es鈥�, 鈥淧artial Yes鈥� or 鈥淣o鈥�. When no meta-analysis was done, question 11, 12 and 15 were answered with 鈥淣o meta-analysis conducted. Studies with鈥夆墺鈥�13 鈥測es鈥� answers were categorized as 鈥渉igh鈥�, 9鈥�12 鈥測es鈥� answers as 鈥渕oderate鈥�, 5鈥�8 鈥測es鈥� answers as 鈥渓ow鈥�, and鈥夆墹鈥�4 鈥測es鈥� answers as 鈥渃ritically low鈥�
Back to article page

樱花视频

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us