Table 3.
Assessment of risk of bias using CAMARADES 10-items quality checklist.
| Study | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | C9 | C10 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asadi et al.28 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 6 | ||||
| Bagheri et al.29 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 5 | |||||
| Dalirfardouei et al.30 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 8 | ||
| Fong et al.31 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 6 | ||||
| Fridoni et al.34 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 4 | ||||||
| Gregorio et al.20 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 8 | ||
| Hendrawan et al.36 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 8 | ||
| Kouhkheil et al.35 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 6 | ||||
| Kouhkheil et al.21 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 8 | ||
| Liu et al.22 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 8 | ||
| Ma et al.37 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 6 | ||||
| Ormazabal et al.38 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 5 | |||||
| Pouriran et al.39 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 7 | |||
| Raj et al.33 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 5 | |||||
| Saheli et al.40 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 4 | ||||||
| Shrestha et al.41 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 6 | ||||
| Tam et al.32 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 7 | |||
| Wang et al.18 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 5 | |||||
| Xin et al.42 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 7 | |||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 7 | ||||
| Zhang et al.27 |
Notes: Studies fulfilling the criteria of the following: C1: peer-reviewed publication; C2: control of temperature; C3: random allocation to treatment or control; C4: blinded induction of model (group randomly after modeling); C5: blinded assessment of outcome; C6: use of anesthetic agent without significant protective and toxic effects on skin; C7: appropriate animal model (diabetic model); C8: sample size calculation; C9: compliance with animal welfare regulations (including three or more of the following points: preoperative anesthesia, postoperative analgesia, nutrition, disinfection, environment temperature, environment humidity, circadian rhythm, and euthanasia); C10: statement of potential conflict of interests.