Table II.
Quality evaluation results of 11 studies included in the present meta-analysis.
| Study | Grouping method | Blinding | ITT | Baseline data | Diagnostic criteria | Confrontation factor control | Quality levela | (Refs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Takahashi (2017) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | (29) |
| Abu-Zaid (2017) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 9 | (30) |
| Younes (2016) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 7 | (31) |
| Nakamura (2016) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 7 | (32) |
| Kizer (2015) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 | (33) |
| Heng (2014) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 9 | (34) |
| Njølstad (2013) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 7 | (35) |
| Matsuo (2013) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 7 | (36) |
| Gorelick (2009) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 9 | (37) |
| Lerner (2007) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 8 | (38) |
| Scholz (2000) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 9 | (39) |
ITT, intention to treat
a
A score of 1 to 6 indicated low quality, whereas a score of 7 to 12 indicated higher quality.