Distribution of Candida species isolated from people living with human immunodeficiency virus with oropharyngeal and oral candidiasis in Africa in the era of universal test and treat policy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 4 Risk of bias assessment of individual studies included in the meta-analysis

Study	Question									Total score	Risk of bias
Study	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Total score	Risk of bias
Agwu et al. 2012 [34]	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	2	Low
Nweze and Ogbonnaya 2011 (Nweze and Ogbonnaya 2011)	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Low
Osaigbovo et al. 2017 [11]	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	Low
Enwuru et al. 2008 [27]	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	Low
Kwamin et al. 2013 [35]	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	Low
Ambe et al. 2020 [16]	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	Low
Miguel et al. 2013a [31]	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	3	Moderate
Taverne-Ghadwal et al. 2022 [14]	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	4	Moderate
Owotade and Patel 2014) [33]	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Low
Konaté et al. 2017[12]	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	Low
Miguel et al. 2013b [31]	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	0	0	3	Moderate
Ekwealor et al. 2023 [30]	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	LOW
Musinguzi et al. 2024 [15]	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	LOW
Yongabi et al. 2009 [32]	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	4	Moderate

Key for different questions used to assess the risk of bias
Q1 = Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population?
Q2 = Were study participants sampled appropriately?
Q3 = Was the sample size adequate?
Q4 = Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
Q5 = Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?
Q6 = Were valid methods used for the identification of Candida species?
Q7 = Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?
Q8 = Was there appropriate statistical analysis?
Q9 = Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?

ISSN: 1349-4147