Table 3 Risk of bias assessment according to Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for prevalence studies
From: Does Anti-Müllerian hormone vary during a menstrual cycle? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Criteria | |||||||||||
1 | Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population? | ||||||||||
2 | Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way? | ||||||||||
3 | Was the sample size adequate? | ||||||||||
4 | Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? | ||||||||||
5 | Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample? | ||||||||||
6 | Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition? | ||||||||||
7 | Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants? | ||||||||||
8 | Was there appropriate statistical analysis? | ||||||||||
9 | Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately? | ||||||||||
Quality Rating | |||||||||||
Rater #1 R.K | |||||||||||
Rater #2 M.P | |||||||||||
Rater #3 Y.R.R | |||||||||||
Studies | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Total (% of “yes”) | Risk of bias |
Cook et al. 2000 [22] | Y | U | Y | N | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | 66.67 | Moderate |
Elder-Geva et al. 2005 [17] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 88.89 | Low |
La Marca et al. 2006 [23] | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 77.78 | Low |
Elgindy et al. 2008 [24] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | Low |
Streuli et al. 2008 [25] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | U | Y | Y | 77.78 | Low |
Robertson et al. 2011 [26] | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 77.78 | Low |
Deb et al. 2013 [27] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | Low |
Kissel et al. 2014 [20] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | Low |
Pankhurst et al. 2016 [21] | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | 66.67 | Moderate |
Melado et al. 2018 [28] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | Low |
Gorkem et al. 2019 [29] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | Low |