Table 6. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

The PRISMA 2020 checklist summarizes how each reporting item of the PRISMA 2020 framework is addressed within the manuscript, including the corresponding section. Items marked as not applicable reflect methodological features of this review, such as the absence of a registered protocol, meta-analysis, or quantitative synthesis.

PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Section and topic	Item #	Checklist item	Location where the item is reported
TITLE
Title	1	Identify the report as a systematic review.	Title
ABSTRACT
Abstract	2	See the PRISMA 2020 for the abstracts checklist.	Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Rationale	3	Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.	Introduction
Objectives	4	Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses.	Introduction
METHODS
Eligibility criteria	5	Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses.	Review
Information sources	6	Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists, and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.	Review
Search strategy	7	Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers, and websites, including any filters and limits used.	Review
Selection process	8	Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.	Review
Data collection process	9	Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.	Review
Data items	10a	List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g., for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.	Review
	10b	List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g., participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.	Review
Study risk of bias assessment	11	Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study, and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.	Review
Effect measures	12	Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.	Not applicable – this review used narrative synthesis only
Synthesis methods	13a	Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g., tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).	Review
	13b	Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics or data conversions.	Review
	13c	Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display the results of individual studies and syntheses.	Not applicable – no meta-analysis was performed
	13d	Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.	Not applicable – no meta-analysis was performed
	13e	Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g., subgroup analysis, meta-regression).	Not applicable – no meta-analysis was performed
	13f	Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.	Not applicable – no meta-analysis was performed
Reporting bias assessment	14	Describe any methods used to assess the risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).	Not applicable – no meta-analysis was performed
Certainty assessment	15	Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.	Not applicable – no meta-analysis was performed
RESULTS
Study selection	16a	Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.	Review
	16b	Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.	Not reported
Study characteristics	17	Cite each included study and present its characteristics.	Review and discussion
Risk of bias in studies	18	Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.	Review
Results of individual studies	19	For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.	Not reported
Results of syntheses	20a	For each synthesis, briefly summarize the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.	Review and discussion
	20b	Present the results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If a meta-analysis was conducted, present, for each, the summary estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval), and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.	Review and discussion
	20c	Present the results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.	Review and discussion
	20d	Present the results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.	Review and discussion
Reporting biases	21	Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.	Review
Certainty of evidence	22	Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.	Review and discussion
DISCUSSION
Discussion	23a	Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.	Discussion
	23b	Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review.	Limitations
	23c	Discuss any limitations of the review processes used.	Limitations
	23d	Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.	Limitations
OTHER INFORMATION
Registration and protocol	24a	Provide registration information for the review, including the register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.	Not registered
	24b	Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared.	Protocol was not prepared
	24c	Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol.	Not applicable
Support	25	Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.	Review
Competing interests	26	Declare any competing interests of review authors.	Review
Availability of data, code, and other materials	27	Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.	Not reported