Table 2. Evaluation of methodological quality of included systematic reviews (n = 9).
| Study | Methodological quality items assessed | Overall qualitya | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | ||
| Dorrius (2011) [39] | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Nindrea (2018) [43] | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | N | Y | N | Moderate |
| Eadie (2012) [44] | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Zhao (2019) [42] | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Henriksen (2019) [37] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | U | U | Moderate |
| Azavedo (2012) [35] | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | N | N | Y | Y | Moderate |
| Cuocolo (2020) [40] | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| Xing (2021) [41] | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | High |
| Tabatabaei (2021) [36] | N | U | Y | Y | Y | U | U | U | N | Y | U | Low |
Note: JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews—Q1. Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated? Q2. Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question? Q3. Was the search strategy appropriate? Q4. Were the sources and resources used to search for studies adequate? Q5. Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate? Q6. Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently? Q7. Were there methods to minimize errors in data extraction? Q8. Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate? Q9. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? Q10. Were recommendations for policy and/or practice supported by the reported data? Q11. Were the specific directives for new research appropriate?
aLow quality: 1 to 5 “yes” answers; Moderate quality: 6 to 10 “yes” answers; High quality: 11 to 13 “yes” answers
Abbreviations: N, no; U, unclear; Y, yes.