Table 2.

Study quality

Study	Randomized adequately a	Allocation concealed	Patient blinded	Care provider blinded	Outcome assessor blinded	Acceptable drop-out rate b	ITT analysis c	Avoided selective reporting	Similar baseline	Similar or avoided cofactor	Patient compliance	Similar timing	Quality d
Kvederas et al. [3]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	High
Leão et al. [24]	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	High
Dutton et al. [23]	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Moderate
Yavarikia et al. [5]	No	Yes	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	High
Steffin et al. [14]	Yes	No	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	High
Hernandez et al. [16]	Yes	No	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	High
Hersekli et al. [15]	No	Yes	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	High
Schuh et al. [9]	Yes	No	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	High
Widman et al. [8]	Yes	No	No	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	High
Barwell et al. [2]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	High
Newman et al. [22]	No	No	Unclear	No	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	High

^aOnly if the method of sequence made was explicitly introduced could get a ‘Yes’.

^bDrop-out rate <20% could get a ‘Yes’, otherwise ‘No’.

^cITT = intention-to-treat, only if all randomized participants were analyzed in the group they were allocated to could receive a ‘Yes’.

^d“Yes” items more than 7 means ‘High’; more than 4 but no more than 7 means ‘Moderate’; no more than 4 means ‘Low’.