Table 5.

Quality of included studies.

Authors	Selection Bias	Study Design	Confounders	Blinding	Data collection methods	Withdrawal and drop out	Global rating
Abd-Eltwab & Ameer, 2021[22]	Weak	Strong	Moderate	Moderate	Strong	Weak	Weak
Almasoodi, Mahdavinejad & Ghasmi, 2020[23]	Strong	Strong	Moderate	Moderate	Strong	Strong	Strong
Azizi et al., 2012[18]	Moderate	Strong	Weak	Moderate	Weak	Weak	Weak
Jabbar & Gandomi, 2021[20]	Moderate	Strong	Strong	Moderate	Moderate	Strong	Strong
Jang et al., 2019[21]	Strong	Strong	Moderate	Strong	Strong	Strong	Strong
Kamali et al., 2016[5]	Weak	Strong	Moderate	Moderate	Strong	Weak	Weak
Karimian et al., 2019[28]	Moderate	Strong	Weak	Moderate	Moderate	Weak	Weak
Katzman et al., 2017[8]	Strong	Strong	Strong	Moderate	Moderate	Strong	Strong
Katzman et al., 2021[17]	Weak	Moderate	Strong	Moderate	Strong	Strong	Moderate
Katzman et al., 2007[27]	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Weak	Strong	Strong	Moderate
Katzman et al., 2017[7]	Strong	Strong	Strong	Moderate	Moderate	Strong	Strong
Mousavi et al., 2019[24]	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Weak	Weak	Weak	Weak
Park & Choung, 2020[25]	Moderate	Strong	Weak	Weak	Weak	Weak	Weak
Park, Kim & Kim, 2020[26]	Moderate	Strong	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Weak	Moderate
Pawlowsky, Hamel & Katzman, 2009[16]	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Weak	Strong	Weak	Weak
Seidi et al., 2014[30]	Moderate	Strong	Weak	Weak	Strong	Strong	Weak
Tarasi et al., 2019[29]	Moderate	Strong	Moderate	Weak	Weak	Weak	Weak
Yoo, 2013[19]	Strong	Weak	Moderate	Weak	Weak	Weak	Weak

Key: Green = strong rating, yellow = Moderate rating, red = weak rating using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool of Quantitative Studies.