Table 1.

Quality assessment according to EPHPP assessment tool for quantitative studies.

Authors in alphabetical order	Selection bias	Study design	Confounders	Blinding	Data collection methods	Withdrawals and dropouts	Overall quality score
Armstrong et al. (2011)	M	S	S	W	S	M	M
Barzel & Reid (2011)	W	W	S	W	S	W	W
Cohen et al. (2004)	W	W	W	S	W	W	W
Feeley et al., (2019)	M	W	S	S	S	S	M
Gruhn et al. (2016)	M	W	S	W	S	W	W
Jaser et al. (2008)	W	W	S	W	S	W	W
Jaser and Grey (2010)	M	W	S	W	S	W	W
Jaser et al. (2014)	W	W	S	W	S	W	W
Jabbour et al., (2016)	M	W	S	S	S	W	W
Jaser et al. (2017)	M	W	S	W	S	W	W
Michaud et al. (2017)	M	W	W	W	S	M	W
Moreira et al. (2014)	M	W	S	S	S	S	M
Mullins et al. (2004)	W	W	S	W	S	W	W
Patton et al. (2011)	W	W	S	W	S	W	W
Sweenie et al. (2014)	M	S	S	S	S	M	S
Troncone et al. (2017)	W	W	S	W	W	W	W
Viaene et al. (2017)	M	W	S	W	W	W	W
Van Gampelaere et al. (2020)	M	W	S	W	S	W	W
Whittemore et al. (2003)	W	W	S	W	S	W	W
Wilson et al. (2009)	M	W	S	S	S	W	W

Note. Studies were rated as strong (S), moderate (M), or weak (W) on each specified dimension.