Table 2. The quality assessment of the included studies.
RCT: randomized controlled trial
| Study | Design | Random Sequence Generation (Selection Bias) | Allocation Concealment (Selection Bias) | Blinding of Participants & Personnel (Performance Bias) | Blinding of Outcome Assessment (Detection Bias) | Incomplete Outcome Data (Attrition Bias) | Selective Reporting (Reporting Bias) | Overall Risk of Bias (RoB) or Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) Score |
| Ge et al., 2024 [10] | RCT (double-blind, placebo-controlled) | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low risk |
| Watanabe et al., 2022 [11] | RCT (multicenter, open-label) | Low | Unclear | High (open-label) | Low | Low | Low | Moderate risk |
| Watanabe et al., 2024 [12] | RCT (multicenter, open-label, adjudicator-blinded) | Low | Low | High (open-label) | Low | Low | Low | Moderate risk |
| Natsuaki et al., 2024 [13] | RCT (multicenter, open-label) | Low | Low | High (open-label) | Low | Low | Low | Moderate risk |
| Hong et al., 2024 [14] | RCT (noninferiority, open-label) | Low | Unclear | High (open-label) | Low | Low | Low | Moderate risk |
| Kim et al., 2020 [15] | RCT (multicenter) | Low | Low | High (open-label) | Low | Low | Low | Moderate risk |
| Min et al., 2024 [16] | RCT (noninferiority, open-label) | Low | Low | High (open-label) | Low | Low | Low | Moderate risk |
| Yang et al., 2023 [17] | Post-hoc analysis of RCT | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Unclear | Low | Low | NOS: 7/9 (good quality); Selection: 4/4, Comparability: 1/2, Outcome: 2/3 |
| Chichareon et al., 2020 [18] | Post-hoc analysis of RCT | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | Unclear | Low | Low | NOS: 7/9 (good quality); Selection: 4/4, Comparability: 1/2, Outcome: 2/3 |
| Mehran et al., 2019 [19] | RCT (double-blind) | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low | Low risk |