TABLE 2 -.

Individual trial RITES scores

Primary author and year of publication	RITES scores*
	D1†	D2‡	D3§	D4||
Abbott et al (32)	4	2	5	4
Ali et al (33)	4	2	2	4
Alkhawajah and Alshami (34)	2	2	2	1
Altinbilek et al (35)	1	2	2	2
Bhagat et al (36)	2	2	2	1
Courtney et al (37)	2	4	1	1
Crossley et al (38)	1	4	4	3
Cruz-Montecinos et al (39)	1	2	2	1
Deyle et al (14)	3	2	4	2
Deyle et al (13)	2	1	4	4
Dwyer et al (40)	2	4	4	4
Fitzgerald et al (41)	2	4	4	4
Forestier et al (42)	3	2	2	1
Jeyakumar et al (43)	2	2	2	4
Jin et al (44)	2	2	3	3
Kaya Mutlu et al (45)	3	2	2	4
Kornkamon and Wanitcha (46)	4	2	2	1
Lalit et al (47)	2	2	1	2
Lizis et al (48)	2	2	3	4
Mahmooda et al (49)	1	3	2	3
Moss et al (50)	4	2	2	1
Narang and Ganvir (51)	2	2	2	2
Nigam et al (52)	1	2	3	3
Pollard et al (53)	2	2	2	1
Pozsgai et al (54)	2	2	2	1
Rao et al (55)	2	2	4	2
Razek and Shenouda (56)	2	2	2	3
Reza et al (57)	2	2	3	3
Sharma (58)	2	2	2	4
Sit et al (59)	2	4	3	1
Syed and Wani (60)	2	2	2	2
Taj et al (61)	4	2	1	4
Tucker et al (62)	2	2	3	2
Witwit et al (63)	1	2	1	5

RITES, Rating of Included Trials on the Efficacy-Effectiveness Spectrum.

*RITES scoring, based on a 5-point Likert scale: 1 = strong emphasis on efficacy; 2 = rather strong emphasis on efficacy; 3 = balanced emphasis on both efficacy and effectiveness; 4 = rather strong emphasis on effectiveness; 5 = strong emphasis on effectiveness; N/A = information not available.

^† RITES Domain 1: participant characteristics.

^‡ RITES Domain 2: trial setting.

^§ RITES Domain 3: flexibility of intervention(s).

^|| RITES Domain 4: clinical relevance of experimental and comparison intervention(s).