Was true randomization used for assignment of participants to treatment groups? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Was allocation to treatment groups concealed? |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Were treatment groups similar at the baseline? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Were participants blind to treatment assignment? |
No |
Unclear |
Unclear |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
Were those delivering treatment blind to treatment assignment? |
Yes |
Unclear |
Unclear |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
Unclear |
No |
Were outcome assessors blind to treatment assignment? |
Yes |
Unclear |
Unclear |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Were treatment groups treated identically other than the intervention of interest? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Was follow-up complete and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow-up adequately described and analysed? |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Were participants analysed in the groups to which they were randomized? |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Were outcomes measured in the same way for treatment groups? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
Was appropriate statistical analysis used? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Was the trial design appropriate, and any deviations from the standard RCT design (individual randomization, parallel groups) accounted for in the conduct and analysis of the trial? |
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
Unclear |
Unclear |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Unclear |
% Score
|
76.92% |
46.15% |
53.84% |
61.53% |
53.84% |
84.61% |
92.30% |
46.15% |
61.53% |
Final appraisal (Quality)
|
High |
Low |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Moderate |
High |
High |
Low |
Moderate |
|
Non-Randomized Experimental Studies (Tufanaru et al., 2020[28])
|
D.H. Kim et al., 2018[29]
|
Son et al., 2017[37]
|
Mousavi et al., 2022[46]
|
Yoon H.S. & You J.S.H. 2017[42]
|
Is it clear in the study what is the ‘cause’ and what is the ‘effect’? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Were the participants included in any comparisons similar? |
Yes |
N/A |
Unclear |
No |
Were the participants included in any comparisons receiving similar treatment/ care, other than the exposure or intervention of interest? |
Yes |
N/A |
Yes |
Yes |
Was there a control group? |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Were there multiple measurements of the outcome both pre and post the interventions /exposure? |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Was follow up complete or if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow up adequately described and analysed? |
N/A |
No |
Unclear |
Yes |
Were the outcomes of participants included in any comparison measured in the same way? |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Yes |
Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Was appropriate statistical analysis used? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
% score
|
66.66% |
44.44% |
44.44% |
66.66% |
Final Appraisal (Quality)
|
Moderate |
Low |
Low |
Moderate |
|
Observational studies (Analytical Cross-sectional) (Moola et al., 2017[26])
|
D.H. Kim et al., 2016[30]
|
Lee J. et al., 2022[39]
|
Kuo et al., 2021[38]
|
Madle et al., 2022[40]
|
J. Novak et al., 2021[41]
|
Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Were the study subjects and the setting described in the detail? |
Yes |
Yes |
Unclear |
Unclear |
Unclear |
Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Were confounding factors identified? |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Was appropriate statistical analysis used? |
N/A |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
% Score
|
62.5% |
75% |
50% |
62.5% |
62.5% |
Final Appraisal (Quality)
|
Moderate |
High |
Moderate |
Moderate |
Moderate |