Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality Assessment of the Studies

From: Safety classification of herbal medicines used among pregnant women in Asian countries: a systematic review

No.

Study

Quality Assessment Items

Relevance to Current Study

% scorea

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

 

1

Al-Riyami et al. [41]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

70.0

2

Jaradat et al. [17]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

90.0

3

Amasha et al. [18]

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

60.0

4

Hashem Dabaghian et al. [36]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

80.0

5

Hwang et al. [38]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

70.0

6

Orief et al. [49]

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

70.0

7

Rahman et al. [19]

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

50.0

8

Tabatabaee [42]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

80.0

  1. aTotal score divided by the total number of items multiplied by 100
  2. 0—no or not reported; 1—yes
  3. A—was sample likely to be representative of the study population? B—was the response rate mentioned in the study? C—was the instrument used reliable? D—was the ethical approval mentioned in the study? E—was it a primary data source? F—were names of used herbal medicine described? G—was prevalence of each herbal medicine used mentioned? H—was route of administration of each herbal medicine described? I—was outcome of pregnancy reported? J—was time of use of herb reported?
  4. Quality assessment and relevance to the current study score: weak: 0–33.9%, moderate: 34%–66.9%, strong: 67%–100%