Table 2.
Methodological quality based on QualSyst critical appraisal tool by Kmet et al. 2004 [18] and NHMRC 1999 [19] evidence level of included articles.
| Reference | Kmet score (%) | Methodological quality1 | NHMRC level of evidence2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aaltonen et al. 2014 [21] | 25/28 (89%) | Strong | II |
| Ackerstaff et al. 2009 [22] | 22/28 (79%) | Good | II |
| Agarwal et al. 2009 [23] | 19/24 (79%) | Good | III-2 |
| Agarwal et al. 2011 [45] | 17/20 (85%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Akst et al. 2004 [46] | 17/20 (85%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Al-Mamgani et al. 2012 [24] | 19/20 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Al-Mamgani et al. 2012 [47] | 21/22 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Al-Mamgani et al. 2013 [25] | 21/22 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Al-Mamgani et al. 2015 [26] | 21/22 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Bansal et al. 2004 [27] | 14/24 (58%) | Adequate | III-3 |
| Bibby et al. 2008 [28] | 18/22 (82%) | Strong | III-2 |
| Bottomley et al. 2014 [78] | 24/28 (86%) | Strong | II |
| Buchbinder et al. 1993 [48] | 14/26 (54%) | Adequate | III-1 |
| Caudell et al. 2010 [49] | 21/22 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Christianen et al. 2015 [50] | 21/22 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Cohen et al. 2006 [51] | 19/20 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Dornfeld et al. 2007 [29] | 17/22 (77%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Dijkstra et al. 2007 [52] | 19/22 (86%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Feng et al. 2007 [53] | 19/22 (86%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Feng et al. 2010 [54] | 20/20 (100%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Frowen et al. 2010 [16] | 22/22 (100%) | Strong | III-2 |
| Haderlein et al. 2014 [55] | 17/20 (85%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Hutcheson et al. 2014 [56] | 18/20 (90%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Jacobi et al. 2016 [30] | 17/18 (94%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Karlsson et al. 2015 [31] | 26/28 (93%) | Strong | II |
| Karlsson et al. 2016 [32] | 18/20 (90%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Kazi et al. 2008 [33] | 17/20 (85%) | Strong | III-2 |
| Kerr et al. 2015 [34] | 19/20 (95%) | Strong | III-2 |
| Kotz et al. 2012 [57] | 24/28 (86%) | Strong | II |
| Kraaijenga et al. 2014 [35] | 19/20 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Kumar et al. 2014 [58] | 19/20 (95%) | Strong | III-2 |
| Lazarus et al. 2014 [36] | 19/20 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| List et al. 1999 [59] | 15/18 (83%) | Strong | III-3 |
| McLaughlin et al. 2010 [60] | 19/20 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Mittal et al. 2001 [37] | 16/20 (80%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Murry et al. 1998 [61] | 11/20 (55%) | Adequate | III-3 |
| Niedzielska et al. 2010 [38] | 17/20 (85%) | Strong | III-2 |
| Nourissat et al. 2010 [62] | 23/26 (88%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Ottoson et al. 2014 [63] | 19/22 (86%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Pauli et al. 2013 [64] | 19/22 (86%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Pauloski et al. 2006 [65] | 18/20 (90%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Rademaker et al. 2003 [66] | 17/20 (85%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Remmelts et al. 2013 [39] | 18/20 (90%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Salama et al. 2008 [67] | 17/20 (85%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Sanguineti et al. 2014 [40] | 19/20 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Scrimger et al. 2007 [68] | 18/20 (90%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Spector et al. 1999 [41] | 17/22 (77%) | Good | III-3 |
| Starmer et al. 2014 [69] | 18/20 (90%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Stenson et al. 2010 [70] | 16/20 (80%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Strigari et al. 2010 [71] | 17/20 (85%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Tuomi et al. 2015 [42] | 18/20 (90%) | Strong | III-2 |
| Urdaniz et al. 2005 [77] | 18/20 (90%) | Strong | III-2 |
| Vainshtein et al. 2015 [72] | 20/24 (83%) | Strong | III-3 |
| van der Molen et al. 2011 [73] | 24/26 (92%) | Strong | II |
| van der Molen et al. 2012 [44] | 16/20 (80%) | Strong | III-3 |
| van der Molen et al. 2013 [74] | 19/20 (95%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Verdonck-de Leeuw et al. 1999 [43] | 18/20 (90%) | Strong | III-2 |
| Verdonck-de Leeuw et al. 2014 [79] | 16/20 (80%) | Strong | III-2 |
| Vlacich et al. 2014 [75] | 18/20 (90%) | Strong | III-3 |
| Wilson et al. 2011 [76] | 18/20 (90%) | Strong | III-3 |
1Methodological quality: strong > 80%; good 60–79%; adequate 50–59%; poor < 50%.
2NHMRC evidence hierarchy designates the following hierarchy: level I (evidence obtained from a systematic review of all relevant RCTs), level II (evidence obtained from at least one properly designed RCT), level III-1 (evidence obtained from well-designed pseudo-RCTs [alternate allocation or some other method]), level III-2 (evidence obtained from comparative studies with concurrent controls and allocation not randomised [cohort studies], case control studies, or interrupted time series with a control group), level III-3 (evidence obtained from comparative studies with historical control, two or more single-arm studies, or interrupted time series without a parallel control group), and level IV (evidence obtained from case series, either posttest or pretest and posttest).