Table 2.
Methodological quality assessment of included studies.
| Study (country) | EC | RA | CA | SAB | SB | TB | AB | DR | ITA | BC | PM | TS | OSQ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ansari et al. (38)a; Iran | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Arabi et al. (39)a; Iran | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Borgi et al. (34); Italy | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Dickinson et al. (35); UK | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Gabriels et al. (36); USA | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Hassani et al. (40)a; Iran | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Najafabadi et al. (41)a; Iran | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | High |
| Pan et al.; (44)a; Taiwan | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | High |
| Rafiei et al.; (42)a; Iran | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | High |
| Sarabzadeh et al.; (43)a; Iran | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Marzouki et al.; (47)a; Tunisia | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Moderate |
| Shanker et al.; (45)a; India | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Haghighi et al.; (46)a; Brazil | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
Yes = 1, no = 0. AB, assessor-blinded; BC, between-group comparison; CA, concealed allocation; DR, dropout rate; EC, eligibility criteria; ITA, intention-to-treat analysis; OSQ, overall study quality; PM, points measures; RA, random allocation; SAB, similar at baseline; SB, subject blinded; TB, therapist blinded; TS, total score. aStudies included in the meta-analysis.