Low (0–4) |
74 |
83.1 |
Medium (5–8) |
14 |
15.7 |
High (9–11) |
1 |
1.1 |
Item analyses |
% yes |
1. |
Was an “a priori” design provided? |
13.5 |
2. |
Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? |
21.4 |
3. |
Was a comprehensive literature search performed? |
20.2 |
4. |
Was the status of publication (i.e., grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? |
19.1 |
5. |
Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? |
3.4 |
6. |
Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? |
95.5 |
7. |
Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? |
31.5 |
8. |
Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? |
21.4 |
9. |
Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? |
52.8 |
10. |
Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? |
15.7 |
11. |
Were potential conflicts of interest included? |
0.0 |