Methodological quality criteria | DeShields [[32]] | Hollender et al. [[33]] | Eisel et al. [[34]] | Taner et al. [[36]] | Liou and Chang [[38]] | Martins et al. [[39]] | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eligibility criteria - clearly described (✓), adequate (✓) | ✓≠| ≠≠| ✘ | ✓≠| ✓≠| ✓≠| ✓≠|
Sample size - calculated (✓), adequate (✓) | ✘✓ | ✘✘ | ✘✘ | ✘✓ | ✘✓ | ✘✓ | ✘✓ |
Randomization/consecutive selection - stated (✓) | ✘ | ✘ | ✓ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
Blinding of assessor - stated (✓) | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ | ✘ |
Intervention details - clearly described (✓) | ≠| ≠| ✘ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Outcome measures - clearly described (✓) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Selective reporting - avoided (✓) | ✘ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Adverse effects - described (✓) | ✘ | ✘ | ✓ | ✘ | ≠| ✘ | ✘ |
Data analysis - appropriate (✓) | ≠| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Point estimates and variability - exact p value (✓), variability measures, SD/CI (✓) | ✘≠| ✘✓ | ✘≠| ✘✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Quality score (percentage of total) | 38.46 | 42.30 | 42.30 | 57.69 | 69.23 | 65.38 | 65.38 |