Table 1. . Summary of methodological quality.

Study/year	Reporting	External validity	Internal validity - bias	Internal validity (selection bias)	Power	Total score	Ref.
Aydiner et al., 2013	10/11	01/03	04/07	03/06	0/1	18	[34]
Cata et al., 2014	11/11	01/03	04/07	03/06	0/1	19	[35]
Chang et al., 2020	09/11	03/03	04/07	03/06	0/1	19	[36]
Chaudhary et al., 2019	10/11	02/03	03/07	02/06	0/1	17	[37]
Coelho et al., 2019	10/11	01/03	04/07	03/06	0/1	18	[38]
Cui et al., 2019	07/11	01/03	04/07	02/06	0/1	14	[56]
Holmes et al., 2013	08/11	01/03	04/07	02/06	0/1	15	[39]
Kaira et al., 2019	09/11	02/03	04/07	02/06	0/1	17	[40]
Lin et al., 2015	09/11	03/03	04/07	02/06	0/1	18	[41]
Mei et al., 2019	08/11	01/03	05/07	02/06	0/1	16	[42]
Musselman et al., 2018	08/11	02/03	04/07	02/06	0/1	16	[43]
Numbere et al., 2015	07/11	01/03	04/07	03/06	0/1	15	[44]
Oh et al., 2020	07/11	01/03	04/07	03/06	0/1	15	[45]
Sakamoto et al., 2019	08/11	01/03	05/07	03/06	0/1	17	[46]
Shah et al., 2011	08/11	02/03	03/07	02/06	0/1	15	[47]
Shao et al., 2016	08/11	02/03	04/07	02/06	0/1	16	[48]
Udumyan et al., 2020	11/11	02/03	03/07	02/06	0/1	18	[49]
Wang et al., 2006	09/11	01/03	05/07	03/06	0/1	18	[50]
Wang et al., 2013	09/11	01/03	04/07	02/06	0/1	16	[51]
Wang et al., 2015	10/11	01/03	04/07	02/06	0/1	17	[52]
Weberpals et al., 2017	10/11	02/03	03/07	04/06	0/1	19	[17]
Yang et al., 2017	10/11	01/03	04/07	02/06	0/1	17	[17]
Yazawa et al., 2016	07/11	01/03	03/07	02/06	0/1	13	[16]
Ji et al., 2022	09/11	01/03	05/07	03/06	0/1	18	[55]

Excellent = 26 to 28; Good = 20 to 25; Fair = 15 to 19; Poor = <14.