Table 3.

Results of the Review Quality Assessment (AMSTAR 2)

Assessment Question (Item)	1. Were the Components of PICO Included?	2. Protocol Reported? Any Deviations Justified?	3. Study Design Justified?	4. Comprehensive Literature Search?	5. Study Selection Performed in Duplicate?	6. Data Extraction in Performed in Duplicate?	7. List of Excluded Studies? Were These Justified?	8. Characteristics of Studies Provided in Detail?	9. Risk of Bias Assessed?	10. Sources of Funding of Included Studies?	11. Methods Used to Combine the Finding of Studies Appreciate? Test on Heterogeneity?	12. Was RoB Accounted for if Meta-Analysis Was Performed?	13. Was RoB Discussed in Individual Studies?	14. Discussion of Any Heterogeneity Observed in the Results?	15. If Quantitative Synthesis, was Publication Bias Investigated and Discussed in Relation to the Results?	16. Conflicts of Interest Stated?	Overall Quality Score
Study
Banerjee (2016)24	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No MA	No MA	Yes	Yes	No MA	Yes	Moderate
Chee (2014)21	Yes	No	Yes	PY	No	No	No	No	No	No	No MA	No MA	No	No	No MA	No	CL
Hope (2019)17	Yes	PY	Yes	PY	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Moderate
Ju (2018)25	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No MA	No MA	No	No	No MA	Yes	CL
Lemstra (2012)22	Yes	No	Yes	PY	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Low
Lewey (2013)18	Yes	No	Yes	PY	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	PY	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low
Mann (2014)23	Yes	No	Yes	PY	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No MA	No MA	No	Yes	No MA	Yes	Low
Mann (2010)20	Yes	PY	Yes	PY	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Low
Ofori-Asenso (2018)19	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Low

Notes: High = No or one none-critical weakness: the systematic review provides an accurate and comprehensive summary of the results of the available studies that address the question of interest. Moderate = More than one non-critical weakness: the systematic review has more than one weakness but no critical flaws. It may provide an accurate summary of the results of the available studies that were included in the review. Low = One critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses: the review has a critical flaw and may not provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the available studies that address the question of interest. Critically low = More than one critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses: the review has more than one critical flaw and should not be relied on to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the available studies.

Abbreviations: PY, partial yes; MA, meta-analysis; RoB, risk of bias; CL, critically low.