Table 3. Risk of bias (comparative studies).

Authors	A clearly stated aim	Inclusion of consecutive patients	Prospective collection of data	Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study	Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint	Follow-up period appropriate to the aim of the study	Loss to follow up less than 5%	Prospective calculation of the study size	An adequate control group	Contemporary groups	Baseline equivalence of groups	Adequate statistical analyses	Score out of 24
Aslıhan Arasli Yilmaz et al., 2015 [23]	2	1	0	2	2	0	0	0	2	2	0	1	12
Arum Choi et al., 2023 [24]	2	0	0	2	2	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	16
Christopher McCulloh et al., 2018 [27]	2	1	0	2	2	0	N/A	0	2	1	0	2	12
Sarah A. Johnson et al., 2016 [17]	2	1	0	2	2	0	N/A	0	1	2	0	2	12
Rola Abdullah Al-Hoqail et al., 2011 [18]	2	2	2	2	2	N/A	N/A	2	1	1	0	1	15
H. Hutchings et al., 2010 [20]	2	2	0	1	2	1	2	N/A	2	1	0	2	15