| Study |
Study Type |
Bias Domain |
Risk of Bias |
Details |
| Stosich et al. [18] |
Experimental Study |
Confounding |
Low |
Potential confounding controlled; no post-intervention variables affected. |
| Selection of Participants |
Low |
Participants selected before intervention; follow-up coincides with intervention start. |
| Classification of Interventions |
Low |
Intervention groups well-defined; no classification bias. |
| Deviations from Intended Interventions |
Low |
No deviations from intended intervention beyond usual practice. |
| Missing Data |
Low |
Outcome data available for nearly all participants. |
| Measurement of Outcomes |
Low |
Outcome measures were not influenced by knowledge of intervention received. |
| Selection of Reported Results |
Low |
No selective reporting based on results from multiple outcomes. |
| Overall Risk of Bias |
Low |
- |
| Ochi et al. [19] |
Clinical Trial |
Randomization Process |
Low |
Allocation sequence was random and concealed. |
| Deviations from Intended Interventions |
Low |
Participants and providers aware of assigned intervention, no deviations from trial context. |
| Missing Outcome Data |
Low |
Data available for all or nearly all participants. |
| Measurement of Outcome |
Low |
No inappropriate outcome measurement; assessors unaware of interventions. |
| Selection of Reported Results |
Low |
Data analysed per pre-specified plan. |
| Overall Risk of Bias |
Low |
- |
| Alonzo et al. [15] |
Review Article |
AMSTAR 2 Criteria |
High |
Comprehensive search strategy, selection and data extraction in duplicate. |
| Reporting and Analysis |
High |
Appropriate statistical methods and consideration of risk of bias in results interpretation. |
| Overall Methodological Quality |
High |
- |
| Gjerde et al. [20] |
Clinical Trial |
Randomization Process |
Low |
Proper randomization and allocation concealment. |
| Deviations from Intended Interventions |
Low |
No deviations due to trial context; participants aware of intervention. |
| Missing Outcome Data |
Low |
Data available for nearly all participants. |
| Measurement of Outcome |
Low |
No bias in outcome measurement or ascertainment. |
| Selection of Reported Results |
Low |
Results reported according to pre-specified analysis plan. |
| Overall Risk of Bias |
Low |
- |
| Tavelli et al. [21] |
Review Article |
AMSTAR 2 Criteria |
High |
Strong adherence to AMSTAR 2 criteria; comprehensive and high-quality methods. |
| Reporting and Analysis |
High |
Consideration of risk of bias, heterogeneity, and publication bias in results interpretation. |
| Overall Methodological Quality |
High |
- |
| Muylaert et al. [16] |
Review Article |
AMSTAR 2 Criteria |
High |
Adherence to AMSTAR 2 with a comprehensive search and accurate risk of bias assessment. |
| Reporting and Analysis |
High |
Appropriate statistical methods and consideration of bias in result interpretation. |
| Overall Methodological Quality |
High |
- |
| Tan et al. [22] |
Experimental Study |
Confounding |
Low |
Confounders controlled; no post-intervention variables affected. |
| Selection of Participants |
Low |
Selection based on pre-intervention characteristics; follow-up aligns with intervention start. |
| Classification of Interventions |
Low |
Clear definition and classification of interventions. |
| Deviations from Intended Interventions |
Low |
No unexpected deviations beyond usual practice. |
| Missing Data |
Low |
Data available for almost all participants. |
| Measurement of Outcomes |
Low |
Outcome measures not influenced by intervention knowledge. |
| Selection of Reported Results |
Low |
No selective reporting based on results from multiple outcomes. |
| Overall Risk of Bias |
Low |
- |
| Jeon et al. [23] |
Review Article |
AMSTAR 2 Criteria |
High |
Strong adherence to AMSTAR 2 with detailed methodology and analysis. |
| Reporting and Analysis |
High |
Consideration of heterogeneity, bias, and comprehensive statistical analysis. |
| Overall Methodological Quality |
High |
- |
| Kwon et al. [27] |
Review Article |
AMSTAR 2 Criteria |
High |
Adherence to comprehensive literature review standards and risk of bias analysis. |
| Reporting and Analysis |
High |
Appropriate statistical combination and consideration of bias. |
| Overall Methodological Quality |
High |
- |
| Feinberg et al. [17] |
Review Article |
AMSTAR 2 Criteria |
High |
Comprehensive search and risk of bias consideration in a high-quality review. |
| Reporting and Analysis |
High |
Accurate methods and in-depth consideration of potential biases. |
| Overall Methodological Quality |
High |
- |
| DiMuzio et al. [25] |
Review Article |
AMSTAR 2 Criteria |
High |
Comprehensive and methodologically strong review with clear bias considerations. |
| Reporting and Analysis |
High |
Adequate methods for statistical combination and bias consideration. |
| Overall Methodological Quality |
High |
- |
| Sterodimas et al. [6] |
Review Article |
AMSTAR 2 Criteria |
High |
High methodological quality, including duplicate study selection and data extraction. |
| Reporting and Analysis |
High |
Appropriate methods for risk of bias assessment and interpretation. |
| Overall Methodological Quality |
High |
- |
| Roddy et al. [26] |
Review Article |
AMSTAR 2 Criteria |
High |
Adherence to high standards in literature review, bias assessment, and reporting. |
| Reporting and Analysis |
High |
Comprehensive statistical and methodological considerations. |
| Overall Methodological Quality |
High |
- |
| Miron et al. [27] |
Clinical Trial |
Randomization Process |
Low |
Proper randomization and allocation concealment with no issues. |
| Deviations from Intended Interventions |
Low |
No deviations, participants aware of intervention, and no bias in context. |
| Missing Outcome Data |
Low |
Data available for almost all participants. |
| Measurement of Outcome |
Low |
No inappropriate measurement or bias in ascertainment. |
| Selection of Reported Results |
Low |
Data analysed according to a pre-specified plan. |
| Overall Risk of Bias |
Low |
- |
