Table 2.

Methodological quality assessment for the included studies.

Included Studies	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	Score
Han et al. [39] (2010)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Not clear	Yes	No	5/11
Sharanl et al. [32] (2012)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Not clear	Yes	No	5/11
Alsaif and Alsenany. [33] (2015)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Not clear	Yes	No	5/11
Atasavun et al. [31] (2016)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	6/11
Trakci et al. [14](2016)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Not clear	Yes	No	5/11
Ren et al. [37] (2016)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	5/11
Rgen et al. [34](2016)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	5/11
Sajan et al. [35] (2017)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	5/11
Zhao et al. [36](2018)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	5/11
Hsieh et al. [30] (2018)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	5/11
Yang et al. [38](2019)	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Not clear	Yes	No	5/11

Note: A. eligibility criteria were specified; B. subjects were randomly allocated to groups; C. allocation was concealed; D. the groups were similar at baseline regarding the most important outcome indicators; E. there was blinding of all subjects; F. there was blinding of all therapists; G. there was blinding of all assessors; H. measures of at least one key outcome were obtained from more than 85% of the subjects initially allocated to groups; I. all subjects for whom outcome measures were available received the treatment or, where this was not the case, data for at least one key outcome was analyzed by “intention to treat”; J. the results of between-group statistical comparisons were reported for at least one key outcome; K. the study provided both point measures and measures of variability for at least one key outcome.