Table 2.
Study quality assessment of all selected trials.
| Reference | Item 1 | Item 2 | Item 3 | Item 4 | Item 5 | Item 6 | Item 7 | Item 8 | Item 9 | Sum Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lavretsky et al. (2011) [24] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9/9 |
| Chou et al. (2004) [25] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/9 |
| Yeung et al. (2012) [26] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9/9 |
| Yeung et al. (2017) [27] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6/9 |
| Chan et al. (2012) [28] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7/9 |
| Field et al. (2013) [34] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/9 |
| Field et al. (2012) [35] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9/9 |
| Janakiramaiah et al. (2000) [42] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/9 |
| Sarubin et al. (2014) [44] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7/9 |
| Schuver et al. (2016) [36] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6/9 |
| Sharma et al. (2005) [43] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7/9 |
| Sharma et al. (2017) [37] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/9 |
| Kinser et al. (2013) [38] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6/9 |
| Uebelacker et al. (2016) [39] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8/9 |
| Ubelacker et al. (2017) [40] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/9 |
| Prathikanti et al. (2017) [41] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/9 |
Note: Item 1 = eligibility criteria; Item 2 = randomization; Item 3 = concealed allocation; Item 4 = similar baseline; Item 5 = blinding of assessors; Item 6 = more than 85% retention; Item 7 = missing data management (intent-to-treat analysis); Item 8 = between-group comparison; Item 9 = point measure and measures of variability; 1 = explicitly described and present in details; 0 = absent, inadequately described, or unclear.