Table 2

Summary scores* of studies based on different QATs

IDAuthor(s) (year)Study designEPHPPTCASPNOSLiverpoolGATEROB
1aBirmingham et al (1997)Case-control study−0.400.44−0.11−0.42−0.39−0.56
1bBirmingham et al (1997)Case-control study−0.400.330.11−0.38−0.33−0.56
2Han and Hlaing (1989)RCT0.500.88NA0.500.24−0.33
3Hoque et al (1999)Case-control study0.400.560.330.500.39−0.22
4Hussein Gasem et al (2001)Case-control study0.400.890.110.000.17−0.22
5Khan (1982)Non-randomised trial−0.83NANA−0.11−0.48−1.00
6Khin et al (1994)Case-control study−0.600.00−0.11−0.50−0.61−0.67
7Peterson et al (1998)Cohort study−0.170.500.33−0.67−0.17−0.78
8Shahid et al (1996)Non-randomised trial−0.17NANA−0.330.16−0.44
9Sircar et al (1987)Non-randomised trial−0.67NANA−0.50−0.36−0.89
10St Louis et al (1990)Case-control study−0.400.22−0.11−0.560.11−0.67
11Velema et al (1997)Case-control study−0.400.000.11−0.50−0.06−0.44
12Wilson et al (1991)Non-randomised trial−0.67NANA−0.83−0.20−0.89
13Yeager et al (1991)Household survey0.00NANA−0.44−0.06−0.33
  • * Summary scores can range from −1 (low quality) to 0 (moderate quality) and +1 (high quality).

  • CASP, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme; EPHPPT, Effective Public Health Practice Project tool; GATE, Graphical Appraisal Tool for Epidemiological Studies; NA, not applicable; NOS, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale; QAT, quality appraisal tool; RCT, randomised controlled trial; ROB, Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool.