References	Risk of bias domains (a)
	Key Criteria			Other Criteria					Tier (b)
	Randomization	Exposure characterization	Outcome assessment	Allocation concealment	Blinding	Attrition	Selective reporting	Other threats to internal validity
Children and adolescents (c)
Al‐Shaar et al. 2013 ‐ Females	++	++	+	++	+	++	+	+	1
Al‐Shaar et al. 2013 ‐ Males	++	NR	+	++	+	++	−	−	2
El‐Hajj Fuleihan et al. 2006 ‐ Females	++	++	+	++	+	++	+	+	1
El‐Hajj Fuleihan et al. 2006 – Males	++	NR	+	++	+	++	− −	− −	2
General adult population
Burt et al. 2019	++	+	++	++	+	++	++	+	1
Grimnes et al. 2012	++	+	++	++	+	++	++	+	1
Jorde et al. 2010	++	+	+	NR	+	–	++	+	1
Rahme et al. 2017	++	++	+	++	++	+	++	++	1
Smith et al. 2018	++	++	++	++	+	+	+	+	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).

^(c)All study groups were based on the same intervention study.