Skip to main content

Table 2 Risk bias assessment of individual studies included for meta-analysis on prevalence of hepatitis B and C in Africa

From: Hepatitis B and C virus infection among healthcare workers in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Wow

Year of publication

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Total score

Risk of bias

Desalegn et al. [29]

2013

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

3

Moderate

Ziraba et al. [53]

2010

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Low

Mueller et al. [51]

2016

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

Low

Nail et al. [50]

2008

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

5

High

Abdelwahab et al. [58]

2012

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

5

High

Braka et al. [28]

2006

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

Low

Djeriri et al. [31]

2008

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

2

Low

Ngekeng et al. [48]

2018

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

4

Moderate

Elmaghloub et al. [33]

2017

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

3

Moderate

Elmukashfi et al. [34]

2012

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

4

Moderate

Elduma and Saeed [36]

2006

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

4

Moderate

Fritzsche et al. [59]

2015

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

5

High

Gebremariam et al. [38]

2018

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

Low

Munier et al. [63]

2013

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

3

Moderate

Kisangau et al. [57]

2018

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

2

Low

Jean-Baptiste et al. [61]

2018

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

4

Moderate

Souly et al. [64]

2016

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

3

Moderate

Orji et al. [47]

2020

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Low

Yizengaw et al. [43]

2018

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Low

Ndako et al. [49]

2014

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

4

Moderate

Elikwu et al. [32]

2016

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

3

Moderate

Geberemicheal et al. [37]

2013

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

Low

Shao et al. [46]

2018

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

2

Low

Sondlane et al. [45]

2016

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

Low

Tatsilong et al. [44]

2016

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

Low

Kateera et al. [65]

2014

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

2

Low

Elbahrawy et al. [66]

2017

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

Low

Akazong et al. [27]

2020

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

Low

Amiwero et al. [67]

2017

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

3

Low

Daw et al. [30]

2000

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

4

Moderate

Romieu et al. [54]

1989

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

6

High

Qin et al. [52]

2018

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

Low

Elzouki et al. [35]

2014

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

Low

Ndongo et al. [56]

2016

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Low

Vardas et al. [68]

2002

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0

4

Moderate

Lungosi et al. [41]

2018

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

2

Low

Massaquoi et al. [39]

2018

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

Low

Mbaawuaga et al. [40]

2019

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

Low

Sani et al. [69]

2011

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

5

High

Zayet et al. [72]

2015

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

6

High

Kefenie et al. [42]

1989

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

2

Low

El-Sokkary et al. [70]

2017

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

Low

Belo et al. [55]

2000

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

4

Moderate

Gyang et al. [73]

2017

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

Low

  1. The risk of bias was classified as either low (total score, 0 to 2), moderate (total score, 3 or 4), or high (total score, 5 to 9)
  2. Q1 = Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population?
  3. Q2 = Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way?
  4. Q3 = Was the sample size adequate?
  5. Q4 = Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
  6. Q5 = Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?
  7. Q6 = Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition?
  8. Q7 = Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?
  9. Q8 = Was there appropriate statistical analysis?
  10. Q9 = Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?