Table 4.

AMSTAR 2 quality rating of included systematic reviews

	PICO research question	Protocol	Study design inclusion rationale	Comprehensive literature search	Duplicate study selection	Duplicate data extraction	List excluded studies + rationale	Adequate study characteristics	Satisfactory RoB Assessment	Funding source of studies	Appropriate meta-analysis	Study RoB impact on meta-analysis	Study RoB impact on conclusions	Heterogeneity explained, discussed	Publication bias assessed, discussed	Conflict of interest, funding declared
Author, year	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16
Wang et al. (2018) [23]	Y	N	N	PY	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y
Wei et al. (2020) [2]	Y	Y	N	PY	N	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y
Yang et al. (2020) [4]	Y	N	N	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	PY	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
Zou et al. (2019) [24]	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	PY	N	N	N	N	Y	Y	N
Lim 2019	Y	N	N	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	PY	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
Farhang 2019 [14]	Y	N	N	PY	Y	Y	Y	PY	PY	N	N	N	N	N	N	Y
Zheng 2017 [3]	Y	N	N	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	N
Zhang et al. 2020 [16]	Y	N	N	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	N	N

Y yes, PY partial yes, N no. High quality yes, for all critical and non-critical items. Moderate quality yes, or partial yes for all applicable critical items and yes or partial yes, for more than 4 applicable non-critical items. Low quality yes, or partial yes for more than 4 applicable critical items; and yes or partial yes, for more than 4 applicable non-critical items. Critically low quality yes or partial yes, for 4 or less applicable critical or non-critical items. Critical items: 2, 4, 9, 11, 13, and 15. Non-critical items: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, and 16