Table 3.
Methodological quality assessment of included studies
| Article/criteria | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | Total | Domains | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| A | B | C | D | E | ||||||||||||||
| Aguilera et al81 | + | − | − | − | − | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 7 | U | U | U | L | ? |
| Aparicio et al68 | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Arroyo-Morales et al69 | + | − | − | − | − | + | − | ? | + | + | + | + | 6 | L | U | U | L | ? |
| Blikstad and Gemmell28 | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | − | + | + | + | 7 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Buttagat et al70 | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Buttagat et al71 | + | − | − | − | − | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 7 | L | U | U | L | ? |
| Chatchawan et al72 | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Farasyn et al82 | + | − | − | − | − | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 7 | L | U | U | L | ? |
| Farasyn and Meeusen73 | + | − | − | − | − | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 7 | U | U | U | L | ? |
| Fernández-de-las-Peñas et al74 (2006) | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Fernandez-Lao et al75 (2012) | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Frey Law et al29 | + | − | − | − | + | + | − | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Fryer and Hodgson76 | + | + | − | − | − | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 7 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Gemmell and Allen77 (2008a) | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Gemmell et al83 (2008b) | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Hamilton et al84 | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Hou et al88 (2002) | + | − | − | − | − | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 7 | L | U | U | L | ? |
| Lewis et al85 | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Mancinelli et al78 (2006) | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Meseguer et al86 | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Oliveira-Campelo et al87 | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Saiz-Llamosas et al79 | + | − | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 8 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Toro-Velasco et al80 | + | + | − | − | + | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | 9 | L | U | L | L | ? |
| Across all studies | L | U | L | L | ? | |||||||||||||
Notes: (+) met criteria, (−) did not meet criteria, (?) unsure, (L) low risk of bias, (U) unclear risk of bias, (H) high risk of bias. Criteria: 1 – was the method of randomization adequate?; 2 – was the treatment allocation concealed?; 3 – was the patient blinded to the intervention?; 6 – was the dropout rate described and adequate?; 7 – were all randomized participants analyzed in the group which they were allocated?; 8 – are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?; 9 – were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators?; 10 – were con-interventions avoided or similar?; 11 – was the compliance acceptable in all groups?; 12 – was the timing of the outcome assessment similar in all groups?. A, selection bias; B, performance bias; C, detection bias; D, attrition bias; E, reporting bias. *1 point for each item meeting criteria.