Table 1.

Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP): Authors agree on methodological quality items for each included study.

Author	CASP Questions (Q)											Judgement
	Section A 1						Section B 2		Section C 3			Score 4
	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11	∑ yes	∑ no	∑ can’t tell
Bakker et al. [24]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	11
Bendix et al. [32]	+	+	+	−	+	+	+	+	+	+	−	9	2
Bergström et al. [27]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+ −	+	10		1
Christensen et al. [31]	+	+ −	+	+ −	+ −	+	+	+ −	+	+	+ −	6		5
Daalgard et al. [29]	+	+	+	+ −	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	10		1
De Buck et al. [19]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	11
Detaille et al. [1]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+ −	+ −	9		2
Friedrich et al. [20]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	11
Lambeek et al. [28]	+	+	+	−	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	10	1
Linton et al. [21]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	11
McGonagle et al. [26]	+	+	−	+ −	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	9	1	1
Nieuwenhuijsen et al. [22]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	11
Ntsiea et al. [23]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	11
Varekamp et al. [25]	+	+	+	−	+ −	+	+	+	+	+	+ −	8	1	2
Kin Wong et al. [30]	+	+	+	−	+	+	+	+	+ −	+	+ −	8	1	2

Legend: “+”―yes: “- “―no; “+ -“―can’t tell. ¹ Are the results of the study valid? ² What are the results? ³ Will the results help locally? ⁴ Methodological quality “yes” scores: 6–8 (good), 9–11 (very good); CASP Questions legend: Q1 = “Did the trial address a clearly focused issue?”; Q2 = “Was the assignment of patients to treatments randomized?”; Q3 = “Were all of the patients who entered the trial properly accounted for at its conclusion?”; Q4 = “Were patients, health workers and study personnel ‘blind’ to treatment?”; Q5 = “Were the groups similar at the start of the trial?”; Q6 = “Aside from the experimental intervention, were the groups treated equally?”; Q7 = “How large was the treatment effect?”; Q8 = “How precise was the estimate of the treatment effect?”; Q9 = “Can he results be applied to the local population, or in your context? ”; Q10 = “Were all clinically important outcomes considered?”; Q11 = “Are the benefits worth the harms and costs?