Table 2.
Risk of bias and quality assessment summary
| Author | Participants and setting described in detail, including similarity of controls | Criteria for inclusion clearly defined and exposures similarly measured | Exposure measured in valid and reliable way | Objective, standard criteria used for measurement of condition | Confounding factors identified | Strategies to deal with confounding factors stated | Outcomes measured in valid and reliable way | Appropriate statistical analysis used? | JBI Score [19] | Risk of Bias [20] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ahmed et al., 2020 [21] | + | + | + | + | + | – | ? | + | 6 | Low |
| 2 | Balakumar et al., 2020 [22] | Risk of bias of uncontrolled before-after studies (assessed with ROBINS – I) [23]: Low quality evidence | |||||||||
| 3 | H. Cai et al., 2020 [24] | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | + | 6 | Low |
| 4 | W. Cai et al., 2020 [25] | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | 7 | Low |
| 5 | Cao et al., 2020 [26] | Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) used (Hong et al., 2018) S1–2 not addressed satisfactory: Low quality evidence | |||||||||
| 6 | Chew et al., 2020 [27] | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | 8 | Low |
| 7 | Chung & Yeung, 2020 [28] | + | – | + | + | – | – | – | – | 3 | High |
| 8 | Huang & Zhao, 2020 [29] | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | 7 | Low |
| 9 | Kang et al., 2020 [30] | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | 7 | Low |
| 10 | Lai et al., 2020 [31] | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | 7 | Low |
| 11 | Li et al., 2020 [32] | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | 7 | Low |
| 12 | Liang et al., 2020 [33] | – | – | + | + | – | – | + | + | 4 | High |
| 13 | Lu et al., 2020 [34] | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | 7 | Low |
| 14 | Mo et al., 2020 [35] | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | + | 6 | Minor |
| 15 | Shacham et al., 2020 [36] | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | 7 | Low |
| 16 | Sun et al., 2020 [37] | Joanna Briggs Institute tool to assess qualitative studies used – 10 item tool [38]: High quality evidence | 9 | ||||||||
| 17 | Tan et al., 2020 [39] | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | 7 | Low |
| 18 | Urooj et al., 2020 [40] | Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) [41] S1–2 & all 5 criteria addressed satisfactory: High quality evidence | |||||||||
| 19 | S. Wang et al., 2020 [42] | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | 7 | Low |
| 20 | Wu et al., 2020 [43] | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | + | 6 | Minor |
| 21 | Xiao et al., 2020 [44] | + | – | + | + | + | – | + | + | 6 | Minor |
| 22 | Xu et al., 2020 [42] | Assessed with Critical Appraisal Skills Programme appraisal tool [45] | Minor | ||||||||
| 23 | Yin & Zeng, 2020 [46] | Joanna Briggs Institute tool to assess qualitative studies used – 10 item tool [38]: High quality evidence | 10 | ||||||||
| 24 | Zhang et al., 2020 [47] | + | + | + | + | + | – | + | + | 7 | Low |