| Study |
Bias |
| Randomisation process |
Deviations from intended interventions |
Missing outcome data |
Measurement of the outcome |
Selection of the reported results |
Overall |
| Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Luciano 2023 |
Low risk of bias |
No additional comments. |
Low risk of bias |
There were no deviations from the intended intervention. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing data for this outcome. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blind. |
Low risk of bias |
Reported result appropriate. |
Low risk of bias |
Low risk of bias in all domains. |
| Toma 2016 |
Low risk of bias |
Randomised in blocks by statastician. |
Low risk of bias |
No participant had the incorect intervention. |
Low risk of bias |
No missing outcome data for this outcome. |
Low risk of bias |
Outcome assessors were blind to group allocation. |
Low risk of bias |
Reported result was appropriate. |
Low risk of bias |
Low risk of bias in all domains. |
