ANNEX A
S1 Table: Appraisal of Cross-sectional Studies (AXIS)
Gebremariam Zemdekun Tsegaye Woldesenbet Fanta Dalo Abegaz Mebrahtom Zeru
Question
Introduction
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
1 Were the aims/objectives of the study clear?
Methods
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 Was the study design appropriate for the stated aim(s)?
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
3 Was the sample size justified?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Was the target/reference population clearly defined? (Is it clear who
4 the research was about?)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Was the sample frame taken from an appropriate population base so that it
5 closely represented the target/reference population under investigation?
Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No
Was the selection process likely to select subjects/participants that were
6 representative of the target/reference population under investigation?
No No Yes No No NA No No No
7 Were measures undertaken to address and categorise non-responders?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured appropriate to the aims
8 of the study?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured correctly using
9 instruments/measurements that had been trialled, piloted or published
previously?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Is it clear what was used to determined statistical significance and/
10
or precision estimates? (e.g. p-values, confidence intervals)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Were the methods (including statistical methods) sufficiently described to
11 enable them to be repeated?
Results
yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
12 Were the basic data adequately described?
Yes No Yes Yes No NA No Yes Yes
13 Does the response rate raise concerns about non-response bias?
Yes No Yes No No NA No No Yes
14 If appropriate, was information about non-responders described?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
15 Were the results internally consistent?
Yes yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
16 Were the results presented for all the analyses described in the methods?
Discussion
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
17 Were the authors’ discussions and conclusions justified by the results?
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
18 Were the limitations of the study discussed?
Others
Yes Yes No Yes yes No Yes Yes Yes
Were there any funding sources or conflicts of interest that may affect the
19 authors’ interpretation of the results?
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
20 Was ethical approval or consent of participants attained?
NA: not applicable
S2 Table: Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for the included observational studies
Selectiona Comparabilityb Outcomec
Included Studies Representativeness of Selection of non- Ascertainment Outcome of interest Assessment Length of Adequacy of Total number of
the exposed cohort Exposed of exposure was not present at of Outcome Follow-up Follow-up starsd
start of study
Kebede A* A* B* A* C A* A* A* 7
Zewdie A* A* B* B C A* A* A* 6
a
Selection:
(1) Representativeness of the exposed cohort: A) Consecutive eligible participants were selected, participants were randomly selected, or all participants were invited to participate from
the source population, B) Not satisfying requirements in part (a), or not stated.
(2) Selection of the non-exposed cohort: A, Selected from the same source population* B) Selected from a different source population C) No description.
(3) Ascertainment of exposure: A) Structured injury data (e.g. record completed by medical staff)* B) Structured interview* C) Written self-report D) No description
(4) For a demonstration that the outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study: A) Yes* B) No or not explicitly stated
Comparability: For comparability of cohorts based on the design or analysis:
A) Study controls for previous injury*
B) Study controls for age*, sex
C) Not comparable for confounders
c
Outcome:
(1) Assessment of outcome: A) Independent or blind assessment stated, or confirmation of the outcome by reference to secure records (e.g. imaging, structured injury data, etc.)* B)
record linkage (e.g. identified through ICD codes on database records)* C) Self-report with no reference to original structured injury data or imaging D) No description
2) Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? A) Yes (≥3 months)* B) No (<3 months)
3) Adequacy of follow up of cohorts: A) Complete follow up – all participants accounted for* B) Subjects lost to follow up unlikely to introduce bias (<15% lost to follow up, or
description provided of those lost*) C) Follow up rate <85% and no description of those lost provided D) No statement
d
Total is out of 9 stars
Note: > 7 High-quality study; 5-7 Moderate quality study; <5 Low-quality study
S3 Table: PubMed Search details
#1 Asthma[MeSH Terms] OR Asthma[tw] OR "bronchial asthma"[tw]
#2 "Prevention and control"[MeSH Subheading] OR control[tw] OR controlled[tw] OR
uncontrolled[tw]
#3 Ethiopia[MeSH Terms] OR Ethiopia[tw]
#4 #1 AND #2 AND #3
Annex B: Figures for the prevalence of asthma and COPD among adults in Ethiopia
S1 Fig.: Overall prevalence of Asthma in Ethiopia
S2 Fig.: Overall prevalence of COPD in Ethiopia
