Table 2.

Studies' quality assessment

Topic (points) /study	Chen et al. (2017)*	Pramila et al. (2016)*	Trairatvorakul and Chunlasikaiwan (2008)*	Al‐Ostwani et al. (2016)*	Ozalp et al. (2005)*	Yu‐xiang et al. (2005)	Xiao‐Fang and Xue‐Bin (2003)*	Mortazavi and Mesbahi (2004)	Subramaniam and Gilhotra (2011)*	Chen and Liu (2005)*	Ramar and Mungara (2010)	Wei‐jian (2006)*	Gupta and Das (2011)*	Ming‐zhi et al. (2009)	Ping‐ping (2011)
Method
Trial design (2)	2	2	2	0	0	1	0.5	2	0	1	0	1	0	0	0
Participants (2)	2	2	1	1.5	1.5	2	2	1	1.5	1	1.5	2	1.5	1	1
Interventions (2)	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	2	0.5	1	1
Outcomes (1)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0.5	1	0.5	1	1	0.5
Sample size (2)	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Randomization (1)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	0	1	0	1	1
Sequence generation (2)	2	2	1	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	0
Allocation and concealment (1)	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Implementation (1)	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Blinding (2)	2	2	0	2	1.5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Results
Statistical methods (2)	2	1.5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	1	0	0	1	0
Participant (2)	2	2	1.5	1.5	1.5	0.5	1	1	1	1.5	0.5	0.5	2	1	0.5
Recruitment (2)	2	2	1.5	2	2	2	1	0.5	2	1	2	2	2	1	1
Baseline data (1)	1	1	0.5	0	1	1	1	1	0.5	0	0.5	0	1	0.5	1
Numbers analyzed (1)	1	1	1	1	0.5	1	0.5	0	1	0.5	0.5	1	1	0.5	1
Outcomes (1)	2	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	0	0.5	0	0.5	0	0	0	0.5	0.5	0.5
Reliability + number of operator (2)	2	2	1	1	1	0	2	0.5	0	0.5	1	0	0	0	0
Total/27 Quality	27 High	26 High	17 Moderate	14.5 Moderate	14.5 Moderate	12.5 Moderate	12.5 Moderate	12 Moderate	11.5 Moderate	11 Moderate	11 Moderate	10 Moderate	9.5 Moderate	8.5 Low	7.5 Low

^* Studies included in the meta‐analysis.