Table 1.

Quality ratings of reviewed studies

Author, publication year	Quality rating
Beniaminovitz et al., 200249; Klaus et al., 200048	9
Chang, et al., 200446 & 200547	20
Cully et al., 201058	19
Curiati et al., 200553	16
Javadeyappa et al., 200750	21
Sullivan et al., 200957	16
Swanson et al., 200952	24
Wang et al., 201351	19
Yu et al., 200754, 200756, 201055	23

Potential range of quality scores = 0 – 35; higher scores indicate better quality.