Table 2.
Methodological quality checklist
| 1. Is there a well-defined question? |
| The question should define at least the participants, the intervention, outcomes and the study designs. |
| 2. Is there a defined search strategy? |
| The search strategy should include at least one named database combined with reference checking, hand searching, citation follow-up or expert contact. |
| 3. Are inclusion/exclusion criteria stated? |
| The review should make the grounds for study inclusion and exclusion transparent in terms of participants, interventions, outcomes and study designs. |
| 4. Are study designs and number of studies clearly stated? |
| The review should outline the designs of included studies and make it clear which and how many studies are in the final synthesis. |
| 5. Have the primary studies been quality assessed? |
| The quality assessment process should be transparent in the review and should clearly describe which quality appraisal tool is used, and the relative quality of the included study. |
| 6. Have the studies been appropriately synthesised? |
| The review should use either meta-analysis or narrative synthesis depending on the heterogeneity and methodological quality. |
| 7. Has more than one author been involved in each stage of the review process? |
| To minimise bias, at least two reviewers should be involved in each stage of the review process (study selection, data extraction, quality appraisal, synthesis). |