The Epidemiology and Economic Burden of Obesity and Related Cardiometabolic Disorders in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis

Table 3

Risk of bias of included epidemiological studies.

Author and year	Was the study’s target population a close representation of the national population in relation to relevant variables?	Was the sampling frame a true or close representation of the target population?	Was some form of random selection used to select the sample or was a census undertaken?	Was the likelihood of nonresponse bias minimal?	Were data collected directly from the subjects (opposed to a proxy)?	Was an acceptable case definition used in the study?	Had the study instrument that measured the parameter of interest been tested for reliability and validity (if necessary)?	Was the same mode of data collection used for all subjects?	Was the length of the shortest prevalence period for the parameter of interest appropriate?	Were the numerator(s) and denominator(s) for the parameter of interest appropriate?	Summary item on the overall risk of study bias
Agarwal et al. (1995) [37]	High	High	High	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Medium
Al-Dhaheri et al. (2016) [36]	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Medium
Al Junaibi et al. (2013) [25]	High	High	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Medium
Al-Mukhtar et al. (2000) [19]	High	High	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Medium
Badr and El-Sabban (2008) [28]	High	High	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Medium
Hossain and Malik (1998) [45]	High	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	High	High	Low	Low	Medium
Kerkadi (2003) [31]	High	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Medium
Musaiger and Radwan (1995) [32]	High	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Medium
Musaiger et al. (2003) [29]	High	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Medium
Papandreou et al. (2015) [33]	High	High	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Medium
Yusufali et al. (2015) [42]	High	High	High	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Medium
Abdulle et al. (2014) [38]	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Abdulrazzaq et al. (2011) [16]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Al Blooshi et al. (2016) [23]	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Al-Haddad et al. (2000) [14]	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Al-Haddad et al. (2005) [22]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Al-Hourani et al. (2003) [21]	Low	High	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
El-Shahat et al. (1999) [39]	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Amine and Samy (1996) [27]	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Baynouna et al. (2008) [43]	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Bin Zaal et al. (2009) [24]	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Carter et al. (2004) [34]	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
El Mugamer et al. (1995) [40]	High	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Hajat and Harrison (2010) [44]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Hajat et al. (2012) [20]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	High	Low	High	Low	Low
Malik et al. (2005) [18]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Malik and Bakir (2007) [15]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Malik and Razig (2008) [17]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Mehairi et al. (2013) [35]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Musaiger et al. (2012) [26]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Newson-Smith (2010) [46]	High	Low	Low	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Ng et al. (2011) [3]	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Saadi et al. (2007) [41]	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Sheikh-Ismail et al. (2009) [30]	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Sreedharan et al. (2015) [13]	High	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low

Items were categorized as having a “high risk,” “intermediate risk,” or “low risk” of bias. Unclear or poor reporting was considered as a high risk of bias. Studies were regarded as having a high overall risk of bias if they meet less than 5 criteria, moderate risk if they meet 5 to 7 criteria, and low risk if they meet 8 or more of the 10 items.