Table 2.
Quality assessment of included studies
| Study | Item | Total score | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | ||
| Zhang et al. 2022 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Chen et al. 2021 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Zhang et al. 2019 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Zheng et al. 2021 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Yu et al. 2019 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Li et al. 2023 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 9 |
| He et al. 2022 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
| Lu et al. 2022 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 |
| Guan et al. 2022 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Wang et al. 2020 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Wei et al. 2022 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Chen et al. 2022 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 |
Note: A: Is the source of the information clear? B: Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria for exposed and non-exposed groups listed or refer to previous publications? C: Is the time period for identifying patients given? D: If it is not from the population, are the subjects continuous? E: Does the evaluator’s subjective factor cover up other aspects of the research subject? F: Describe any evaluation conducted to ensure quality (such as detection/re-detection of main outcome indicators); G: Explained the reasons for excluding any patients from the analysis; H: The measures to evaluate and/or control the confounding factors are described; I: If possible, it explains how to deal with the lost data in the analysis; J: The response rate of patients and the integrity of data collection were summarized; K: If there is follow-up, find out the expected percentage of incomplete data of patients or follow-up results.