Table 2.
Quality assessment of included studies.
| Study reference | Sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding of participants and personnel for all outcomes | Blinding of outcome assessors for all outcomes | Incomplete outcome data for all outcomes | Selective outcome reporting | Other sources of bias | Overall judgment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abraham et al. [24] | low | low | low | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Ahmad et al. [38] | low | low | low | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Armstrong et al. [23] | low | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Bagherniya et al. [39] | low | low | unclear | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Banos et al. [40] | low | unclear | unclear | unclear | high | low | low | high risk of bias |
| Baranowski et al. [18] | low | low | high | low | low | low | low | some concerns but not likely to significantly bias results |
| Bohlin et al. [22] | unclear | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | some concerns but not likely to significantly bias results |
| Bruno et al. 2018 | low | low | high | low | low | low | low | some concerns but not likely to significantly bias results |
| Chen et al. [42] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Chen et al. 2019 | low | low | unclear | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Christison et al. [43] | low | low | high | unclear | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Coknaz et al. [44] | low | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Currie et al. [45] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| DaSilva et al. 2019 | high | high | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | high risk of bias |
| Davis et al. [47] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Desilse Nystrom et al. 2017 | low | low | high | low | low | low | low | some concerns but not likely to significantly bias results |
| Desilse Nystrom et al. 2020 | low | low | high | low | low | low | low | some concerns but not likely to significantly bias results |
| Faith et al. [50] | low | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Fleischman et al. [51] | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Foley et al. [52] | low | low | high | unclear | low | low | low | some concerns but not likely to significantly bias results |
| Fonseca et al. [21] | low | unclear | unclear | unclear | high | low | low | high risk of bias |
| Fulkerson et al. [53] | low | high | high | unclear | low | low | low | high risk of bias |
| Gao et al. [54] | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Garza et al. [55] | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Gerards et al. [56] | low | low | unclear | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Gutierrez-Martinez et al. 2018 | unclear | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Haines et al. [34] | low | low | high | high | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Hammersley et al. [57] | low | low | low | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Hull et al. [58] | low | low | low | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Jensen et al. [19] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Kennedy et al. [59] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Kulendran et al. [60] | unclear | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Love-Osborne et al. [61] | unclear | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Lubans et al. [62] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Maddison et al. [63] | low | low | high | high | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Mameli et al. [64] | low | low | high | high | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Markert et al. [65] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Moschonis et al. [66] | unclear | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Nawi et al. [67] | unclear | unclear | unclear | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | high risk of bias |
| Nollen et al. [68] | unclear | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Norman et al. [69] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Pfeiffer et al. [70] | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Rerksuppaphol et al. [71] | low | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Rifas-Shiman et al. [72] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Sherwood et al. [73] | unclear | unclear | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Sherwood et al. [74] | low | low | low | high | high | low | low | high risk of bias |
| Simons et al. [75] | low | low | high | low | low | low | low | some concerns but not likely to significantly bias results |
| Smith et al. [76] | low | low | unclear | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Staiano et al. [78] | low | low | unclear | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Staiano et al. [77] | low | low | unclear | low | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Sze et al. [79] | low | low | high | high | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Taveras et al. [81] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Taveras et al. [81] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |
| Trost et al. [82] | low | low | high | high | low | low | low | some concerns |
| vanGrieken et al. 2017 | low | low | high | high | low | low | low | some concerns |
| Wald et al. [83] | low | low | unclear | unclear | low | low | low | low risk of bias |