Table 3: Methodological quality criteria and quality score
Citation	Year	Clearly focusedquestion?	Inclusion/ exclusion	Comprehensive	Number ofsearchstrategies	Number of years	Methodologicalquality	Methods weighting	Strength of evidence	Congruence data & author interpretation	COI	Quality score	Percent
Aldana	2001	1	1	1	2	1	0	2	1	1	1	11	85%
Bell	2009	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	2	1	1	13	100%
Bigos	2009	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	12	92%
Brewer	2007	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	2	1	1	13	100%
Cancelliere	2011	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	2	1	1	13	100%
Carroll	2010	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	1	1	12	92%
Chapman	2012	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	0	1	1	11	85%
Czabala	2011	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	2	1	1	13	100%
Elders	2000	1	1	1	2	1	0	1	2	1	1	11	85%
Furlan	2012	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	12	92%
Hlobil	2005	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	12	92%
Maher	2000	1	1	0	2	1	1	2	2	1	1	12	92%
Palmer	2012	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	12	92%
Proper	2002	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	1	1	12	92%
Schaafsma	2011	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	2	1	1	13	100%
Tuncel	2006	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	1	12	92%
Tveito	2004	1	1	0	2	1	1	2	2	1	1	12	92%
van Dongen	2011	1	1	1	2	1	1	1	2	1	1	12	92%