Table 2.

Details about methodological quality of included studies

Quality assessment for randomized trials	Niu CC	Chen Y	Chou YC	Cabraja M	Quality assessment for non-randomized trials
Was the assigned treatment adequately concealed prior to allocation?	2	1	2	2	A clearly stated aim
Were the outcomes of participants who withdrew described and included in the analysis?	0	2	1	1	Inclusion of consecutive patients
Were the outcome assessors blinded to treatment status?	2	0	0	0	Prospective data collection
Were the treatment and control group comparable at entry?	2	2	1	2	Endpoints appropriate to the aim of the study
Were the participants blind to assignment status after allocation?	0	0	1	2	Unbiased assessment of the study endpoint
Were the treatment providers blind to assignment status?	0	0	2	2	A follow-up period appropriate to the aims of the study
Were care programmes, other than the trial options, identical?	2	2	2	2	Less than 5 % loss to follow-up
Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly defined?	2	2	0	0	Prospective calculation of the sample size
Were the interventions clearly defined?	2	2	2	2	Prospective calculation of the sample size
Were the outcome measures used clearly defined?	2	2	1	2	An adequate control group
Were diagnostic tests used in outcome assessment clinically useful?	2	2	2	1	Baseline equivalence of groups
Was the surveillance active, and of clinically appropriate duration?	2	2	2	2	Adequate statistical analyses