Epidemiological Patterns of Skin Disease in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Table 2
Evaluation of the risk of bias in included primary studies.
Study ID
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
Overall risk of study bias
Albasri et al. 2018
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Albasri et al. 2019
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Alakloby 2005
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Ahmed et al. 2016
High risk
High risk
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Moderate risk
Alghanmi et al. 2013
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Al-Maghrabi et al. 2004
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Al-Saeed et al. 2006
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Al Shammrie et al. 2017
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Alshammari et al. 2018
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Alshamrani et al. 2019
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Al Shobaili 2010
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Bahamdan et al. 1995
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Parthasaradhi et al. 1998
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Shelleh et al. 2004
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
List of the 10 questions (Q1–Q10) applied to the studies: Q1. Was the study’s target population a close representation of the national population in relation to relevant variables, e.g., age, sex, occupation? Q2. Was the sampling frame a true or close representation of the target population? Q3. Was some form of random selection used to select the sample, OR, was a census undertaken? Q4. Was the likelihood of nonresponse bias minimal? Q5. Were data collected directly from the subjects (as opposed to a proxy)? Q6. Was an acceptable case definition used in the study? Q7. Was the study instrument that measured the parameter of interest shown to have reliability and validity (if necessary)? Q8. Was the same mode of data collection used for all subjects? Q9. Was the length of the shortest prevalence period for the parameter of interest appropriate? Q10. Were the numerator(s) and denominator(s) for the parameter of interest appropriate?
