Table 5.

Risk of bias and quality assessment (AXIS tool results) of the articles reporting outcomes in association with 13RW based on subjective measures.

Arendt et al., 2019 [59]

Carter et al., 2020 [50]

Chesin et al., 2020 [60]

Cingel et al., 2021 [62]

da Rosa et al., 2019 [52]

Ferguson, 2021 [53]

Hong et al., 2019 [54]

Lauricella et al., 2018 [51]

Nesi et al., 2020 [55]

Swedo et al., 2021 [56]

Uhls et al., 2021 [57]

Wang et al., 2022 [61]

Zimerman et al., 2018 [58]

Introduction

1

Were the aims/objectives of the study clear?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Methods

2

Was the study design appropriate for the stated aim(s)?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

3

Was the sample size justified?

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

4

Was the target/reference population clearly defined? (Is it clear who the research was about?)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

5

Was the sample frame taken from an appropriate population base so that it closely represented the target/reference population under investigation?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

6

Was the selection process likely to select subjects/participants that were representative of the target/reference population under investigation?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

7

Were measures undertaken to address and categorize non-responders?

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

8

Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured appropriate to the aims of the study?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

9

Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured correctly using instruments/measurements that had been trialed, piloted or published previously?

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

10

Is it clear which methods were used to determined statistical significance and/or precision estimates? (e.g., p values, CIs)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

11

Were the methods (including statistical methods) sufficiently described to enable them to be repeated?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Results

12

Were the basic data adequately described?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

13

Does the response rate raise concerns about non-response bias?

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

14

If appropriate, was information about non-responders described?

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

15

Were the results internally consistent?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

16

Were the results presented for the analyses described in the methods?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Discussion

17

Were the authors’ discussions and conclusions justified by the results?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

18

Were the limitations of the study discussed?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Other

19

Were there any funding sources or conflicts of interest that may have affected the authors’ interpretation of the results?

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

20

Were ethical approval or consent of participants attained?

Yes/No

Yes/Yes

Yes/No

Yes/Yes

Yes/Yes

Yes/Yes

Yes/Yes

No/No

Yes/No

No/Yes

Yes/Yes

Yes/No

Yes/No