Table 1.
Bias analysis.
| Article | NIH analysis results | JBI analysis | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laird et al. (2021) | - Exposure was only assessed once - Modalities of outcome assessors (blinded) are not presented |
No bias | Fair |
| Koch et al. (2019) | - Eligibility criteria are not clearly described - The sample is not large enough to provide confidence in the findings - People assessing the outcomes were not blinded to the participants’ exposure - No multiple measurements before and after the intervention |
- No multiple measurements of the outcome both pre and post-intervention/exposure |
Average |
| Ho (2015) | - Information about the enrollment of all eligible participants meeting prespecified entry criteria is not presented - The sample size is too small to provide confidence in the findings - People assessing the outcomes are not blinded to the participants’ interventions |
Not adequate | Fair |
| Levine & Land (2016) | - Authors do not mention how many reviewers conducted the study - In the method, there is no mention of a way to minimize errors in data extraction - No bias assessment is mentioned - No mention of heterogeneity assessment |
- Authors do not mention how many reviewers conducted the study - In the method, there is no mention of a way to minimize errors in data extraction - No bias assessment is mentioned - No mention of heterogeneity assessment |
Average |
| Ko (2017) | - No follow-up (the last result is the last session) | - No description of post-intervention clinical condition - No adverse or unanticipated events are mentioned |
Fair |
| Verreault (2017) | - The exposures of interest are not measured before the measurement of the outcome | - Influence of the researcher on the research, and vice-versa, are unclear | Good |
| Dieterich-Hartwell et al. (2021) | - Outcome measures of interest were not taken multiple times before the intervention and multiple times after the intervention - People assessing the outcomes are not blinded to the participants’ exposure - The sample is not sufficiently large to provide enough confidence in the findings - Information about the enrollment of all eligible participants meeting prespecified entry criteria is not presented |
No bias | Average |
| Ley et al. (2017) | No bias | No bias | Good |
| Moe (2014) | Not adequate | - The congruity between the research methodology and the research question is unclear. - The influence of the researcher on the research and vice-versa is not addressed. - The conclusions do not report any flow. |
Average |
| Manford (2014) | Not adequate | - Patient's demographic characteristics are not described. - Patient's history is very brief. - The intervention procedure is not described at all. - The post-intervention clinical conditions remain unclear. |
Average |
| Fargnoli (2017) | Not adequate | - The influence of the researcher on the research, and vice-versa, is not addressed. | Good |
| Koch & Weidinger-von der Recke (2009) | Not adequate | - Diagnostic tests and assessments are not clearly described in the method and results. - The post-intervention clinical condition is not clearly described |
Fair |
| Lee et al. (2022) | No bias | No bias | Good |
| Özümerzifon et al. (2022) | - It is unclear if all participants that met inclusion criteria are enrolled - The sample size is too small to provide confidence in the findings - People assessing the outcomes are not blinded to the participants’ exposure - It is unclear if the loss to follow-up is accounted for in the analysis - No multiple measurements before and after the intervention |
No bias | Average |
| Schaeffer & Cornelius-White (2021) | - No bias assessment was conducted before including the publications | Good | |
| Colace (2017) | - Study question and objective are not clearly stated - The intervention is not clearly described - The outcome measures are not clearly defined - No length of follow-up was mentioned - The results are not well-described |
- The current clinical condition of the patient is not clearly described - No diagnostic tests or assessment methods, no clear description of the results - Interventions or treatment procedures are not clearly described |
Poor |
| Dunphy, Elton, & Jordan (2014) | - The population is not specified and defined - Eclectic population (not similar), no inclusion nor exclusion criteria - No mention of the exact sample size - No justification for the sample size - No data analysis - The timeframe is non-sufficient to establish an association between exposure and outcome. - No variation in exposure - The exposure measures are not defined - Exposure was assessed once, at the end of the session - Outcome assessors were not blinded to the exposure status of participants - Potential confounding variables are not measured |
- The congruity between the research methodology and the research question is unclear. - No congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data. - No congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data. - Participants and their voices are not adequately presented - Ethics approval is not mentioned. - Conclusion does not report flow from the analysis or interpretation of the data |
Poor |