Table 2. Quality assessment tools.

This table presents details of experimental and review studies investigating Slo2 channels and KCNT1/KCNT2-related neurodevelopmental disorders. It includes the type of model or study design, the risk of bias or quality assessment tool used (e.g., SYRCLE RoB, AMSTAR 2, OHAT-inspired), overall confidence rating, and important observations or limitations for each study.

Study	Model type	RoB/quality tool	Overall confidence	Key notes
Zhang et al. (2012) [6]	Aplysia neurons, xenopus oocytes	Cell study-OHAT-inspired	Moderate	Single experimental study, in vitro; no behavioral data; some detection bias possible
Kim and Kaczmarek (2014) [9]	Systematic review	AMSTAR 2	Critically low	Narrative synthesis; critical domains not met; lacks experimental validation; focus on epilepsy
Bausch et al. (2015) [11]	Kcnt1 null mice	SYRCLE RoB	Moderate	Well-designed behavioral study; unclear allocation concealment; partial blinding of outcome assessment
Quraishi et al. (2020) [12]	Kcnt1 -/- and R455H mice	SYRCLE RoB	Low	Adult animal models, non-standard seizure protocols; genetic background differences; blinding not reported
Kessi et al. (2020) [13]	Systematic review	AMSTAR 2	Low	Comprehensive literature search, but critical domains partially met; lack of experimental validation; heterogeneous data
Gong et al. (2021) [14]	Case report (KCNT2 variants)	N/A (case report)	Very low	Only two patients; small sample size; genotype-phenotype correlations uncertain; observational design
Wu et al. (2024) [15]	Rat PFC neurons	SYRCLE RoB	Moderate	Electrophysiology + behavioral testing; small sample; partial blinding; direct functional outcomes assessed
Malone et al. (2025 [16]	HEK cells, primary cortical neurons	Cell study-OHAT-inspired	Moderate	Mechanistic insights; potential off-target effects; detection bias in translation assays