References	Risk of bias domains (a)
	Key Criteria			Other Criterion					Tier (b)
	Randomization	Exposure characterization	Outcome assessment	Allocation concealment	Blinding	Attrition	Selective reporting	Other threats to internal validity
Bischoff‐Ferrari et al. 2012	+	+	+	NR	+	++	+	+	1
Cashman et al. 2012	++	++	++	++	++	++	++	++	1
Catalano et al. 2015	+	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	++	+	3
Corrado et al. 2021	++	NR	–	NR	–	+	++	+	2
Graeff‐Armas et al. 2020	++	++	+	++	++	+	++	+	1
Jakobsen et al. 2017	+	++	−−	NR	+	++	++	++	2
Navarro‐Valverde et al. 2016	+	NR	–	NR	−−	+	++	NR	3
Okoye et al. 2022	++	−−	–	–	−−	−−	++	+	3
Ruggiero et al. 2019	++	−−	–	+	–	–	–	+	3
Shieh et al. 2017	++	++	+	NR	NR	+	++	+	1
Vaes et al. 2018a	++	++	+	++	++	++	+	+	1
Vaes et al. 2018b	++	++	+	+	++	+	+	++	1

^(a)Expert judgement was translated into a rating scale for each question to be answered as follows: (++): definitely low RoB; (+): probably low RoB; (NR): not reported; (−): probably high RoB; (−−): definitively high RoB.

^(b)The individual rating for each question was combined by an algorithm and translated to an overall tier of reliability for each individual study (RoB tier 1: low RoB; RoB tier 2: moderate RoB; RoB tier 3: high RoB).