Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality of included studies according to CCHMC Table of Evidence Levels, JBI tools, and CEBMa tool

From: Socioeconomic impacts of airborne and droplet-borne infectious diseases on industries: a systematic review

Author (Year)

Study Design

LOE

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

Q11

Overall Quality

Akazawa et al. (2003) [35]

ACS

3a

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Al-Ghunaim et al. (2021) [36]

QS

2a

 

*

 

*

*

  

*

*

*

N/A

Good

Alsharef et al. (2021) [37]

QS

2a

 

*

*

*

*

  

*

*

*

N/A

Good

Banerjee et al. (2021) [38]

LS

3a

N/A

N/A

*

 

*

N/A

*

*

*

 

*

Good

Bergeron et al. (2006) [39]

QS

2a

 

*

*

 

*

  

*

*

*

N/A

Good

Brophy et al. (2021) [40]

QS

2a

*

*

*

 

*

  

*

*

*

N/A

Good

Calvo-Bonacho et al. (2020) [41]

PS

3a

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Carroll & Smith (2020) [42]

CS

5a

*

*

  

*

*

 

*

*

 

N/A

Good

Challener et al. (2021) [43]

ACS

4b

  

*

*

  

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Moderate

Considine et al. (2011) [44]

ACS

4a

*

*

*

*

  

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Good

Danial et al. (2016) [45]

CS

5a

*

*

*

 

*

*

 

*

*

*

N/A

Excellent

Delaney et al. (2021) [46]

ACS

4a

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Duarte et al. (2017) [47]

ACS

3a

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Escudero et al. (2005) [48]

PS

3a

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Good

Fargen et al. (2020) [49]

ACS

4b

  

*

*

  

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Moderate

Gashi et al. (2021) [50]

PS

3a

*

  

*

*

*

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Good

Gray et al. (2021) [51]

LS

3a

N/A

N/A

*

*

*

N/A

*

*

*

*

 

Excellent

Groenewold et al. (2013) [52]

PS

3a

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Good

Groenewold et al. (2019) [53]

PS

3a

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Groenewold et al. (2020) [54]

PS

3a

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Good

Haidari et al. (2021) [55]

ACS

4a

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Hammond & Cheang (1984) [56]

PS

3a

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Good

Harrop et al. (2021) [57]

ACS

3b

*

     

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Moderate

Hasan et al. (2021) [58]

PS

3a

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Good

Hemmington & Neill (2021) [59]

QS

2a

*

*

*

*

*

  

*

*

*

N/A

Excellent

Iacus et al. (2020) [60]

PS

3a

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Jazieh et al. (2021) [61]

ACS

4a

*

 

*

*

*

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Jha et al. (2020) [62]

PS

3a

*

 

*

 

*

 

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

Good

Jiménez-Labaig et al. (2021) [63]

ACS

4b

  

*

*

  

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Moderate

Jones et al. (2021) [64]

PS

3a

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

*

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Karatepe et al. (2021) [65]

ACS

4a

  

*

*

*

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Good

Karve et al. (2013) [66]

LS

3a

N/A

N/A

*

*

*

N/A

*

*

  

*

Good

Keech et al. (1998) [67]

PS

3a

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Lee et al. (2008) [68]

PS

3a

*

*

*

 

*

 

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Good

Leigh (2011) [69]

PS

3a

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Lim et al. (2020) [70]

ACS

4a

*

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Matsuo et al. (2021) [71]

ACS

4a

 

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Good

Mosteiro-Diaz et al. (2020) [72]

ACS

4a

*

*

*

*

*

 

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Noorashid & Chin (2021) [73]

QS

2a

*

*

*

*

*

  

*

*

*

N/A

Excellent

Novak et al. (2021) [74]

ACS

4b

*

*

*

   

*

 

N/A

N/A

N/A

Moderate

Palmer et al. (2010) [75]

Cohort study

2a

*

*

*

  

*

*

*

*

*

*

Excellent

Richmond et al. (2020) [76]

ACS

4b

 

*

 

*

  

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Moderate

Schanzer et al. (2011) [77]

PS

3a

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Slone et al. (2021) [78]

ACS

4a

*

*

 

*

  

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Good

Tilchin et al. (2021) [79]

ACS

4a

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Torá-Rocamora et al. (2011) [80]

LS

3a

N/A

N/A

*

*

*

N/A

*

*

*

 

*

Excellent

Tsai et al. (2014) [81]

PS

3a

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Turnea et al. (2020) [82]

ACS

4b

 

*

 

*

  

*

 

N/A

N/A

N/A

Moderate

Van der Feltz-Cornelis et al. (2020) [83]

ACS

4a

 

*

*

 

*

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Good

Van der Merwe et al. (2021) [84]

PS

3a

*

*

*

 

*

 

*

*

 

N/A

N/A

Good

Van Wormer et al. (2017) [85]

ACS

4a

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Excellent

Webster et al. (2021) [86]

LS

3b

N/A

N/A

*

  

N/A

*

*

   

Moderate

Widodo et al. (2020) [87]

ACS

4b

 

*

 

*

   

*

N/A

N/A

N/A

Moderate

Yohannes et al. (2003) [88]

PS

3a

*

*

*

 

*

*

*

  

N/A

N/A

Good

Zaffina et al. (2019) [89]

CCS

4a

 

*

*

*

*

  

*

*

 

N/A

Good

  1. ACS analytical cross-sectional study, CCS case-control study, CS case study, LOE level of evidence, LS longitudinal study, PS prevalence study, QS qualitative study, * star awarded, N/A not applicable
  2. (1) The CCHMC Table of Evidence classifies level of evidence for individual studies by study design, domain, and quality, with level 1 representing the highest level and indicating the strongest evidence, and level 5 representing the lowest level and indicating the weakest evidence. In addition, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools and Center of Evidence Based Management (CEBMa) case study critical appraisal checklist were used to further subclassify studies at each level to either “a” or “b”, which signifies good quality and lesser quality study respectively in terms of methodological quality
  3. (2) Some questions are indicated as N/A because the quality tool for that specific study design has a certain number of quality appraisal checklist, e.g., JBI for ACS has 8 quality appraisal checklists, and Q9 to Q11 do not apply
Back to article page

BMC Infectious Diseases

ISSN: 1471-2334

Contact us