Table 2.

Methodological risk of bias assessment using MINORS checklist.

Study	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	Score
Borges, 2017 [36]	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	-	-	-	-	1	14/16
Charlton et al., 2017 [10]	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	-	-	-	-	1	14/16
Damji, 2021 [37]	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	-	-	-	-	2	15/16
de Leeuw, 2022 [38]	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	-	-	-	-	2	15/16
Gageler, 2015 [39]	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	0	2	2	1	1	18/24
Gielen, 2022 [40]	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	0	2	1	2	2	20/24
Jarning, 2015 [41]	2	2	1	1	0	2	2	0	2	2	1	2	17/24
Joao, 2021 [42]	1	2	2	1	2	1	2	-	-	-	-	1	12/16
Kupperman, 2021 [43]	2	2	2	2	0	2	2	0	2	0	1	1	16/24
Lima, 2019a [25]	1	2	1	1	2	1	2	0	2	1	0	1	14/24
Lima, 2019b [44]	2	2	2	2	1	0	2	-	-	-	-	1	12/16
Lima, 2020 [45]	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	-	-	-	-	2	15/16
Markovic, 2021 [46]	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	-	-	-	-	2	15/16
McDonald, 2017 [47]	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	-	-	-	-	1	14/16
Montoye, 2018 [48]	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	-	-	-	-	1	13/16
Piatti et al., 2022 [49]	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	0	2	2	2	2	20/24
Schleitzer, 2022 [50]	2	2	2	2	0	1	2	-	-	-	-	2	13/16
Schmidt, 2021 [51]	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	0	2	2	1	1	18/24
Setuain, 2021 [52]	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	-	-	-	-	1	14/16
Skazalski, 2018 [24]	2	2	2	1	0	2	2	-	-	-	-	2	13/16
Skazalski, 2018b [53]	1	2	2	2	0	1	2	-	-	-	-	1	11/16
Vlantes, 2017 [54]	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	-	-	-	-	2	15/16

Note: The MINORS checklist asks the following information (2 = High quality; 1 = Medium quality; 0 = Low quality): clearly defined objective (item 1); inclusion of consecutive patients (item 2); information collected retrospectively (item 3); assessments adjusted to objective (item 4); evaluations carried out in a neutral way (item 5); follow-up phase consistent with the objective (item 6); dropout rate during follow-up less than 5% (item 7); a control group having the gold standard intervention (item 8); contemporary groups (item 9); baseline equivalence of groups (item 10); prospective calculation of the sample size (item 11); and appropriate statistical analysis (item 12).