Table 3.

Quality assessment of included reviews.

Domain 1	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	AMSTAR Score 4
Study
Bleakley & Stinson (2011) [21]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	5
Buffart et al. (2012) [22]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
Cramer et al. (2012) [23]	Yes	Yes	Yes	CA 2	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9
Harder et al. (2012) [24]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	8
Lee et al. (2007) [17]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	6
Levine et al. (2012) [25]	Yes	CA	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	3
Pan et al. (2015) [19]	Yes	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
Pan et al. (2017) [18]	Yes	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
Shneerson et al. (2013) [15]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9
Stan et al. (2012) [16]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	6
Zhang et al. (2012) [20]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA 3	Yes	8
Domain total score across studies	11	9	11	3	0	10	9	9	7	2	7

¹ Quality assessment domains: 1 was an ‘a priori’ design provided; 2 was there duplicate study selection and data extraction; 3 was a comprehensive literature search performed; 4 was the status of publication (i.e., grey literature) used as an inclusion criteria; 5 was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided; 6 was characteristics of the included studies provided; 7 was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented; 8 was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions; 9 was the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate; 10 was the likelihood of publication bias assessed; 11 was potential conflicts of interest included. ² CA: Can’t answer. ³ NA: Not applicable. ⁴ A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) score: very high ≥10, high: 8–9.9, medium: 4–7.9, low: 0–3.9.