Table 2. Evaluation of the quality of the studies with Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL).

Study	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	%
Ayalon et al. (2000)[27]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	UC	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	70
Fagher et al. (2016)[4]	Yes	No	No	Yes	UC	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	60
Iga et al. (2006)[5]	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	50
Johnsen et al. (2015)[12]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	100
Kellis et al. (1999)[11]	Yes	No	No	Yes	UC	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	60
Merlini et al. (1995)[3]	Yes	No	No	Yes	UC	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	60
Moreau et al. (2008)[10]	Yes	No	No	Yes	UC	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	60
Pierce et al. (2006)[20]	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	60
Santos et al. (2013) [2]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	UC	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	70
Van den Berg-Emons et al. (1996)[21]	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	30

%: (Items "yes" x 100)/11; Was the test evaluated in a sample of subjects who were representative of those to whom the authors intended the results to be applied? 2. Was the test performed by raters who were representative of those to whom the authors intended the results to be applied? 3. Were raters blinded to the findings of other raters during the study? 4. Were raters blinded to their own prior findings of the test under evaluation? 5. Were raters blinded to the results of the reference standard for the target disorder (or variable) being evaluated? 6. Were raters blinded to clinical information that was not intended to be provided as part of the testing procedure or study design? 7. Were raters blinded to additional cues that were not part of the test? 8. Was the order of examination varied? 9. Was the time interval between repeated measurements compatible with the stability (or theoretical stability) of the variable being measured? 10. Was the test applied correctly and interpreted appropriately? 11. Were appropriate statistical measures of agreement used?

Yes; No; UC: unclear.