Table 2.
Results of quality assessment.
| Quality criteria | Studies | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| den Hartog et al. [3] | Nickenig et al. [19] | Sánchez-Siles et al. [20] | Piao et al. [21] | Peñarrocha-Diago et al. [22] | Karlsson et al. [23] | Van de Velde et al. [24] | Bratu et al. [25] | Goswami [26] | Shin et al. [16] | Lee et al. [27] | Puchades-Roman et al. [28] | |
| (1) Was the study described as random? | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No |
|
| ||||||||||||
| (2) Was the randomization scheme described and appropriate? | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No |
|
| ||||||||||||
| (3) Was the study described as double-blind? | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
|
| ||||||||||||
| (4) Was the method of double blinding appropriate? | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
|
| ||||||||||||
| (5) Was there a description of dropouts and withdrawals? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Jadad score | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Quality of study | High | High | Low | Low | High | Low | High | High | Low | High | Low | Low |