Table 3.
Methodological quality assessment for included studies.
| Included studies | Eligibility criteria | Random allocation | Allocation concealment | Similar at baseline | Subject blinded | Therapist blinded | Assessor blinded | Dropout rate | Intention-to-treat analysis | Between-group comparison | Points measures | Total score | Overall study quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adib Saber et al., 2021* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Adequate |
| Ansari et al., 2021* | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | Adequate |
| Brand et al., 2015 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | Poor |
| Garcia et al., 2024 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | Poor |
| Gudek Seferoglu et al., 2022* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| Lawson et al., 2017 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | Poor |
| Lawson et al., 2022 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | Poor |
| Liu et al., 2023* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | High |
| NaraSiNgharao et al., 2017* | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | Adequate |
| Oriel et al., 2016 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | Poor |
| Toscano et al., 2022* | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | Adequate |
| Tse et al., 2019* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | High |
| Tse et al., 2022* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | High |
| Tse et al., 2023* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 | High |
*Yes = 1; No = 0. ≤3 are considered “poor,” 4–5 are considered “adequate,” ≥6 are high. *Study included in the meta-analysis.