Table 2.
Methodological quality of the included studies (n = 15).
| Study | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Overall score (0–10) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arliani et al.,45 2014 | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 7 |
| Drawer and Fuller,51 2001 | N | Y | N | Y | U | N | N | Y | Y | N | 4 |
| Elleuch et al.,46 2008 | N | U | N | Y | U | Y | U | Y | Y | N | 4 |
| Iosifidis et al.,58 2015 | Y | U | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 7 |
| Kettunen et al.,47 2001 | Y | N | Y | Y | U | N | N | U | Y | Y | 5 |
| Kettunen et al.,57 2006 | N | U | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | 4 |
| Klunder et al.,53 1980 | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 7 |
| Krajnc et al.,48 2010 | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 7 |
| Kujala et al.,55 1995 | Y | U | N | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 7 |
| Paxinos et al.,49 2016 | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | N | 6 |
| Rajabi et al.,50 2012 | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 6 |
| Roos et al.,54 1994 | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | 7 |
| Spector et al.,44 1996 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 8 |
| Turner et al.,52 2000 | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | 6 |
| Tveit et al.,56 2012 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | 9 |
1. Was the sample representative of the target population?
2. Were study participants recruited in an appropriate way?
3. Was the sample size adequate?
4. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?
5. Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?
6. Were objective, standard criteria used for the measurement of the condition?
7. Was the condition measured reliably?
8. Was there appropriate statistical analysis?
9. Are all important confounding factors/subgroups/differences identified and accounted for?
10. Were subpopulations identified using objective criteria?
11. Y, yes; N, no; U, unclear; N/A, not applicable.