Table 9.

Critical appraisal of the included randomized trials

Study	Was the method used to generate random allocations adequate?	Was the allocation adequately concealed?	Were the groups similar at the outset of the study in terms of prognostic factors?	Were the care providers, participants, and outcome assessors blind to treatment allocation?	Were there any unexpected imbalances in dropouts between groups?	Is there any evidence to suggest that the authors measured more outcomes than they reported?	Did the analysis include an intention-to-treat analysis? If so, was this appropriate and were appropriate methods used to account for missing data?
Parallel-group studies
Al Bazzal et al. [23]†	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	Unclear	No	Yes
Almutairi et al. [55]†	Unclear	No	Yes	No	No	No	No
Asilian et al. [42]†	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Ghandi et al. [27]†	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Unclear	No	No	No
Kar et al. [18]	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	No	No	No	No
King et al. [47]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
King et al. [51]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
King et al. [52]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes
Lai et al. [36]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No
Rocha et al. [30]†	Unclear	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No
King et al. [53]	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Tiwary et al. [35]†	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	No	No	No
Split-scalp
Shapiro et al. [31]	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	No	No	No
Thuangtong et al. [33]	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	No
Thuangtong et al. [34]†	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	Unclear	No	No

^†Study was a randomized trial with no placebo control