Table 2.
Methodological quality assessment for the included studies.
| Reference | Item 1 | Item 2 | Item 3 | Item 4 | Item 5 | Item 6 | Item 7 | Item 8 | Item 9 | Item 10 | Sum score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bao [27] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Chan et al. [28] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Cheng et al. [29] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Deschamps et al. [19] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Huang et al. [31] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
| Lam et al. [32] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Lavretsky et al. [35] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Mortimer et al. [36] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Nguyen and Kruse [37] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Sun et al. [38] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Sungkarat et al. [39] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Tao et al. [43] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Taylar-Piliae et al. [44] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Tsai et al. [45] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
Note: Item 1, randomization; Item 2, concealed allocation; Item 3, similar baseline; Item4, blinding of subjects; Item 5, blinding of therapists; Item 6, blinding of assessors; Item 7, more than 85% retention; Item 8, intent-to-treat analysis; Item 9, between-group comparison; Item 10, point measure and measures of variability; 1, explicitly described and present in details; 0, absent, inadequately described, or unclear.