Skip to main content

Psychology: Research and Review

Table 2 Risk of bias of included articles in the narrative review

From: Review of suicidal ideation during pregnancy: risk factors, prevalence, assessment instruments and consequences

Study

SANRA items

Quality rating

Item 1. Justification of the article's importance for the readership

Item 2. Statement of concrete aims or formulation of questions

Item 3. Description of the literature search

Item 4. Referencing

Item 5. Scientific reasoning

Item 6. Appropriate presentation of data

Kalmbach et al., 2020

2

2

0

2

2

1

High (9)

Tabb et al., 2019

1

2

0

1

2

2

Medium (8)

Rodriguez et al., 2018

1

1

0

1

2

2

Medium (7)

Zhang et al., 2020

2

1

1

1

1

2

Medium (8)

O'Connor et al., 2018

1

2

2

2

1

1

High (9)

Levey et al., 2019

1

1

0

1

2

1

Medium (6)

Gelaye et al., 2016

2

2

2

1

1

2

High (10)

Onah et al., 2017

1

2

1

1

2

1

Medium (8)

Mebrahtu et al., 2020

2

1

1

1

1

1

Medium (7)

Rodriguez et al., 2017

1

1

1

1

1

1

Medium (6)

Chan et al., 2016

1

2

1

1

1

1

Medium (7)

Gelaye et al., 2019

1

1

1

1

1

1

Medium (6)

Shamu et al., 2016

1

1

1

1

2

2

Medium (8)

Mikšić et al., 2018

1

2

1

1

1

2

Medium (8)

Gelaye et al., 2017

1

1

1

1

1

2

Medium (7)

Zhong, Gelaye, et al., 2016

2

2

1

1

2

2

High (10)

Supraja et al., 2016

1

2

1

2

2

1

High (9)

Zewdu et al., 2021

1

1

1

1

2

2

Medium (8)

Luo et al., 2018

1

2

1

1

2

2

High (9)

Weng et al., 2016

1

2

1

1

2

2

High (9)

Musyimi et al., 2020

2

1

1

1

2

1

Medium (8)

Suzuki et al., 2019

1

2

2

1

2

2

High (10)

Palagini et al., 2019

1

2

1

1

2

2

High (9)

Zhong, Wells, et al., 2016

1

1

1

1

1

1

Medium (6)

Vergel et al., 2019

1

2

1

1

1

2

Medium (8)

  1. Level at which each item is met 0 = low; 1 = medium; 2 = high. Quality of each article was determined based on the sum of its items 0 to 4 = low quality; 5 to 8 = medium quality; 9 to 12 = high quality.