Table 1.

Risk of bias summary.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
Barkoukis et al., 2015
Barkoukis et al., 2015
Blank et al., 2015
Blank et al., 2016
Blashill et al., 2017
Bloodworth et al., 2012
Chan et al., 2015a (JSMS)
Chan et al., 2015b (JSEP)
Corbin et al., 1994
Dodge and Clarke, 2015
Dodge and Jaccard, 2006
Dodge and Jaccard, 2006
Dunn and White, 2011
DuRant et al., 1995
Elkins et al., 2017
Elliot et al., 2007
Faigenbaum et al., 1998
Giraldi et al., 2015
Goldberg et al., 1991
Hoffman et al., 2008
Irving et al., 2002
Jampel et al., 2016
Judge et al., 2012
Kindlundh et al., 1999
Laure et al., 2004
Laure and Binsinger, 2007
Lazuras et al., 2015
Lucidi et al., 2004
Lucidi et al., 2008
Lucidi et al., 2013
Madigan et al., 2016
Mallia et al., 2013
Mallia et al., 2016
Melia et al., 1996
Miller et al., 2002
Moston et al., 2015
Naylor et al., 2001
Nicholls et al., 2015
Nilsson, 1995
Rees et al., 2008
Pedersen and Wichstrøm, 2001
Sagoe et al., 2016
Schirlin et al., 2009
Stilger and Yesalis, 1999
Terney and McLain, 1990
vandenBerg et al., 2007
Wanjek et al., 2007
Wichstrøm, 2006
Woolf et al., 2014
Wroble et al., 2002
Zelli et al., 2010a—(JCSP)
Zelli et al., 2010b—(PSE)

Risk of Bias , Low; , Unclear; , High. The risks of bias of studies included were assessed using the criteria below. Studies were assessed as having (a) no or low risk of bias, or (b) potential risk of bias. Criterion for all studies involved: Sampling (1. Participants are randomly selected, 2. Sample sizes are adequate, 3. Participants are representative of various demographic groups, 4. If some participants were excluded from the analyses, the exclusion is justified, 5. When group comparisons were made, participants were matched on other meaningful demographics, and 15. Other risks of bias), and measures (i.e., 6. Validated measures are used, or the authors have provided sufficient supportive information of the psychometric properties of the measures they devised and 7. Measures used were clearly defined and were appropriate). The criterion for studies that adopted a longitudinal or prospective design included: 8. Authors examined whether dropout is random, 9. Missing data were treated appropriately. Finally, the following criterion was used for experimental designs: 10. Allocation sequence generated to produce comparable groups. 11. Allocation was concealed, 12. Whether blinding was done and the effectiveness of it, 13. Outcome data for all outcomes were reported. Incomplete outcomes due to attrition and exclusions were addressed, and 14. No selective outcome reporting.