Table 2.

Overall risk of reporting bias: domain scores

Reference	Sample selection (maximum++)	Index description (maximum ++)	Statistical methods (maximum ++)	Validity (maximum +++)	Funding source (maximum ++)	Overall quality
Corrao et al44	-	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Wen et al42	++	++	+	-	++	Low
Stanley and Sarfati49	++	++	+	+	++	High
Wei et al17	+	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Robusto et al45	+	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Lorem et al50	+	++	++	+	++	Satisfactory
Pati et al51	++	++	+	++	++	Satisfactory
Hong et al18	++	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Wister et al46	++	+	++	-	++	Satisfactory
Brettschneider et al48	++	++	+	-	++	Satisfactory
Min et al19	-	++	+	++	+	Satisfactory
Carey et al40	+	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Dong et al43	+	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Bernabeu-Wittel et al47	++	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Mukherjee et al20	++	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Newman and Goodman21	++	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Tooth et al38	+	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
George et al39	-	++	+	++	+	Satisfactory
Lee et al22	++	++	+	+	++	High
Farley et al23	-	-	+	+	+	Low
Byles et al37	++	++	+	+	-	High
Bayliss et al24	++	++	++	+	++	High
Selim et al25	+	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Pope et al26	++	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Sangha et al27	++	++	+	+++	++	High
Fan et al28	+	+	+	+	++	Low
Desai et al29	++	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Crabtree et al41	-	++	+	+	++	Low
Hornbrook and Goodman30	+	+	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Greenfield et al31	++	++	+	+	++	Satisfactory
Parkerson et al32	++	++	+	++	+	High
Von Korff et al33	-	+	+	++	++	Satisfactory
Starfield et al34	-	++	-	+	++	Low
Charlson et al35	-	++	+	+	-	Low
Linn et al36	-	+	+	++	-	Low