Table 2.

Risk of bias evaluation of the included literature.

Literature	①	②	③	④	⑤	⑥	⑦	⑧	Total
Dias 2018	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	7
Ingul 2018	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	7
Kargarfard 2016	√	√	√	×	?	√	√	?	5
Murphy 2015	√	√	√	√	√	?	×	×	5
Starkoff 2014	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	×	7
Lau 2015	√	√	√	?	√	√	?	√	6
Racil 2013	√	√	√	?	√	√	×	√	6
Racil 2015	√	√	√	?	√	√	√	?	6
Bogataj 2021	√	√	√	√	√	√	?	√	7
Cvetkovic 2018	√	√	√	?	√	√	×	√	6
Farah 2014	√	√	√	?	√	×	×	√	5
Koubaa 2013	√	√	√	?	√	?	√	?	5
Boer 2013	√	√	√	?	√	×	√	×	5
Cao 2022(b)	√	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	7
Cao 2022(a)	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	8
Li 2023	√	√	√	?	√	×	√	√	6
Cao 2022	√	√	√	?	√	√	√	?	6
Yuan 2021	√	√	√	?	√	√	√	×	6
Total	18	18	18	7	17	10	12	10

① Clear inclusion criteria were specified. ② Random allocation was performed. ③ There were no significant differences in baseline values between groups. ④ Blinding of outcome assessors was implemented. ⑤ All participants received the intended intervention or intention-to-treat analysis was performed on the experimental results. ⑥ The proportion of dropouts or lost to follow-up was less than 20%, and detailed reasons were provided. ⑦ The sample size met the calculation requirements. ⑧ The study reported the effect size, precision, and results for each group.