Table 3.
Quality evaluation of the included studies.
| Study Name (Reference) | [12] | [38] | [8] | [22] | [13] | [6] | [14] | [16] | [35] | [29] |
| 1. Question/objective sufficiently described? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 2. Study design evident and appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 3. Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables described and appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 4. Subject characteristics sufficiently described? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 5. If interventional and random allocation was possible, was it described? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 1 |
| 6. If interventional and blinding of investigators was possible, was it reported? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| 7. If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible, was it reported? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| 8. Outcome and exposure measure(s) well-defined and robust to measurement/misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 9. Sample size appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 10. Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 11. Is some estimate of variance reported for the main results? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 12. Controlled for confounding factors? | 2 | NA | 1 | 0 | NA | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 2 |
| 13. Results reported in sufficient detail? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 14. Conclusions supported by the results? | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Total points | 22 | 19 | 20 | 18 | 17 | 19 | 18 | 19 | 16 | 21 |
| Max points possible | 22 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 20 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 20 | 28 |
| Summary score, in percentage | 100% | 95% | 91% | 82% | 85% | 95% | 82% | 86% | 80% | 75% |
| Study Name (Reference) | [32] | [26] | [21] | [17] | [18] | [41] | [7] | [23] | [19] | [46] |
| 1. Question/objective sufficiently described? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 2. Study design evident and appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| 3. Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables described and appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 4. Subject characteristics sufficiently described? | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 5. If interventional and random allocation was possible, was it described? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 6. If interventional and blinding of investigators was possible, was it reported? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 7. If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible, was it reported? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 8. Outcome and exposure measure (s) well-defined and robust to measurement/ misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 9. Sample size appropriate? | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 10. Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate? | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 11. Is some estimate of variance reported for the main results? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 12. Controlled for confounding? | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | NA | NA | 1 | 1 |
| 13. Results reported in sufficient detail? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 14. Conclusions supported by the results? | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Total points | 20 | 16 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 18 | 20 | 15 | 20 | 20 |
| Max points possible | 20 | 20 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 26 | 20 | 20 | 22 | 22 |
| Summary score, in percentage | 100% | 80% | 85% | 86% | 91% | 69% | 100% | 75% | 91% | 91% |
| Study Name (Reference) | [33] | [24] | [27] | [40] | [25] | [31] | [15] | [30] | [20] | |
| 1. Question/objective sufficiently described? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 2. Study design evident and appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 3. Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables described and appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 4. Subject characteristics sufficiently described? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 5. If interventional and random allocation was possible, was it described? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 | NA | NA | NA | |
| 6. If interventional and blinding of investigators was possible, was it reported? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| 7. If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible, was it reported? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| 8. Outcome and exposure measure (s) well-defined and robust to measurement/ misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 9. Sample size appropriate? | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 10. Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| 11. Is some estimate of variance reported for the main results? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 12. Controlled for confounding? | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 1 | NA | NA | |
| 13. Results reported in sufficient detail? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | |
| 14. Conclusions supported by the results? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |
| Total points | 19 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 19 | 21 | 18 | 19 | |
| Max points possible | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 20 | 20 | |
| Summary score, in percentage | 95% | 100% | 100% | 95% | 100% | 86% | 95% | 90% | 95% | |
| Study Name (Reference) | [36] | [43] | [39] | [42] | [44] | [37] | [45] | [34] | [28] | |
| 1. Question/objective sufficiently described? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 2. Study design evident and appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 3. Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables described and appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 4. Subject characteristics sufficiently described? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 5. If interventional and random allocation was possible, was it described? | NA | NA | NA | 2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 | |
| 6. If interventional and blinding of investigators was possible, was it reported? | NA | NA | NA | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 | |
| 7. If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible, was it reported? | NA | NA | NA | 0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 | |
| 8. Outcome and exposure measure (s) well-defined and robust to measurement/ misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 9. Sample size appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
| 10. Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate? | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 11. Is some estimate of variance reported for the main results? | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 12. Controlled for confounding? | NA | NA | NA | 2 | 1 | NA | NA | 2 | 2 | |
| 13. Results reported in sufficient detail? | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 14. Conclusions supported by the results? | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
| Total points | 20 | 20 | 15 | 23 | 20 | 17 | 18 | 22 | 22 | |
| Max points possible | 20 | 20 | 20 | 28 | 22 | 20 | 20 | 22 | 28 | |
| Summary score, in percentage | 100% | 100% | 75% | 82% | 90% | 85% | 90% | 100% | 78.6% |