Table 2.

Quality of studies

References	Was the study question or objective clearly stated?	Was the study population clearly and fully described, including a case definition?	Were the cases consecutive?	Were the subjects comparable?	Was the intervention clearly described?	Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?	Was the length of follow-up adequate?	Were the statistical methods well-described?	Were the results well-described?	Quality summary
Kaspiris et al. [14]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✗	✔	✔	2
Berman et al. [20]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✗	✗	✔	2
Nemeth 2017	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✗	✔	✔	2
Antony et al. [21]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	2
Kumar et al. [16]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✗	✔	✗	2
Pachowsky et al. [23]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✗	✔	2
Tameem et al. [15]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✗	✔	✔	2
Ding et al. [24]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✗	✔	✗	✔	2
Ding et al. [19]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✗	✔	✔	2
Faber et al. [18]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✗	✔	✔	2
Jones et al. [17]	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✗	✔	✔	2

Quality was rated as 0 for poor (0–3 out of 9 questions), 1 for fair (4–6 out of 9 questions), or 2 for good (7–9 out of 9 questions)

NA not applicable, NR not reported