Table 1.
Results of the methodological quality assessment of included studies — McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies [38]
| Study | Item | Total | % | Quality score | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ||||
| Gopukumar et al. [20], 2021 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 100 | E |
| Kuchewar et al. [33], 2014 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 14 | 87.5 | VG |
| Lopresti et al. [39]., 2019 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 100 | E |
| Lopresti et al. [40], 2019 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 100 | E |
| Pingali et al. [42], 2013 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 87.5 | VG |
| Raut et al. [34], 2012 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 62.5 | F |
| Tiwari et al. [41], 2021 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 100 | E |
| Verma et al. [35], 2021 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 86.7 | VG |
| Wankhede et al. [15], 2015 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 93.8 | E |
| Ziegenfuss et al. [16], 2018 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 93.8 | E |
Item 1: study purpose; item 2: literature review; item 3: study design; item: 4 blinding; item 5: sample description; item 6: sample size; item 7: ethics and consent; item 8: validity of outcomes; item 9: reliability of outcomes; item 10: intervention description; item 11: statistical significance; item 12: statistical analysis; item 13: clinical importance; item 14: conclusions; item 15: clinical implications; item 16: study limitations
0 not fulfilled criterion, 1 fulfilled criterion, E excellent, VG very good, G good, F fair