TABLE 2.
The CAMARADES quality items.
| Study | ① | ② | ③ | ④ | ⑤ | ⑥ | ⑦ | ⑧ | ⑨ | ⑩ | Quality score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| He et al. (2020) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | ? | N | √ | 5 |
| Liao (2020) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
| Liao et al. (2019) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | N | √ | 6 |
| Mei et al. (2010) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | N | √ | 6 |
| Wan (2022) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
| Sheraz (2019) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
| Fang et al. (2021) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | ? | N | √ | 5 |
| Mei et al. (2009) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | N | √ | 6 |
| Ma et al. (2022) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
| Xiang et al. (2024) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
| He et al. (2020) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
| Ding et al. (2020) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
| Peng et al. (2022) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
| Liu et al. (2016) | √ | √ | √ | N | N | N | √ | √ | √ | √ | 7 |
(1) peer reviewed publication; (2) presence of randomization of subjects into treatment groups; (3) assessment of dose-response relationship; (4) blinded assessment of behavioural outcome; (5) monitoring of physiological parameters such as body temperature; (6) calculation of necessary sample size to achieve sufficient power; (7) statement of compliance with animal welfare regulations; (8) avoidance of anaesthetic agents with marked intrinsic neuroprotective properties (e.g., ketamine); (9) statement of potential conflict of interests; (10) use of a suitable animal model.
Abbreviations: √, fulfilling the criterion; N, not fulfilling the criterion; ?, not enough information to determine whether or not the criterion is fulfilled.