Table 5.
Methodological quality of the included studies (using Joanna Briggs Institute for economic evaluation instrument).
| Study | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robotic devices | ||||||||||||
| Hesse et al., 2014 [18] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | 6/11 |
| Bustamante et al., 2016 [19] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | 6/11 |
| McCabe et al., 2015 [20] | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes | 6/11 |
| Wagner et al., 2011 [21] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 11/11 |
| Masiero et al., 2014 [22] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | 7/11 |
| Housley et al. 2016 [23] | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | 5/11 |
| Chan et al., 2022 [24] | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | 2/11 |
| Fernández-García et al., 2021 [25] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | 9/11 |
| Rodgers et al., 2020 [26] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 10/11 |
| Pinto et al., 2023 [27] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | 7/11 |
| Virtual reality devices | ||||||||||||
| Lloréns et al., 2015 [28] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | 8/11 |
| Islam et al., 2019 [29] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | 7/11 |
| Adie et al., 2017 [30] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 9/11 |
| Thomas et al., 2017 [31] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | 4/11 |
| Farr et al., 2021 [32] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | 5/11 |
| Total % | 93.33 | 66.66 | 86.66 | 86.66 | 86.66 | 93.33 | 33.33 | 40 | 20 | 33.33 | 46.66 | |
JBI critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations: Q1. Is there a well-defined question? Q2. Is there a comprehensive description of alternatives? Q3. Are all important and relevant costs and outcomes for each alternative identified? Q4. Has clinical effectiveness been established? Q5. Are costs and outcomes measured accurately? Q6. Are costs and outcomes valued credibly? Q7. Are costs and outcomes adjusted for differential timing? Q8. Is there an incremental analysis of costs and consequences? Q9. Were sensitivity analyses conducted to investigate uncertainty in estimates of cost or consequences? Q10. Do study results include all issues of concern to users? Q11. Are the results generalizable to the setting of interest in the review?