Skip to main content
. 2023 Aug 8;14:1191290. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1191290

TABLE 2.

Results of assessing the methodological quality of all the meta-analyses included in the meta-analysis.

Study Q11 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Quality assessment
Zhai et al. (2017) No Partial Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Moderate
Fan et al. (2017) No Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
Mazidi et al. (2018) No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
Hajiluian et al. (2021) No Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
Jorat et al. (2019) No Partial Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
Zhang et al. (2019) No Partial Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Moderate
Farsi et al. (2019) No Partial Yes Yes Partial Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Moderate
Dludla et al. (2020) No Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes High
Alimohammadi et al. (2021) No Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
Akbari et al. (2020) No Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
Sangsefidi et al. (2020) No Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
Dai et al. (2022) No Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
Sedaghat et al. (2022) No Partial Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High

Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? 2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 11. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? 12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? 13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? 14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 15. If they performed quantitative synthesis, did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? 16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?

Each question was answered with “Yes”, “Partial Yes” or “No”. When no meta-analysis was done, question 11, 12 and 15 were answered with “No meta-analysis conducted.