Table 1.

Appraisal results of each study using our tool with total scores and percentages both for each study and for each tool item

Study	Risk of bias (RoB) assessment		Pooling of results						Strength of evidence assessment				Total score	%
Item	1 (0–2)	2 (0–1)	3 (0–2)	4 (0–1)	5 (0–2)	6 (0–2)	7 (0–2)	8 (0–2)	9 (0–2)	10 (0–2)	11 (0–1)	12 (0–1)
Arirachakaran et al 11	0	0	2	1	–	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	7/18	39
Arirachakaran et al 12	0	0	2	1	0	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	7/20	35
Balasubramaniam 13	2	0	2	1	2	–	0	2	2	0	0	0	11/18	61
Bannuru et al 14	2	0	2	1	2	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	7/18	39
Bjordal et al 15	2	0	2	1	–	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	9/18	50
Boudreault et al 16	0	0	2	0	–	2	0	0	1	2	0	0	7/18	39
Buchbinder et al 17	2	0	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	0	1	1	17/20	85
Catapano et al 18	0	0	2	0	0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	2/18	11
Challoumas et al 19	2	0	0	1	2	–	2	0	2	0	1	1	11/18	61
Challoumas et al 20	2	0	0	1	2	–	2	0	2	0	1	1	7/11	61
Chen et al 21	0	0	2	1	–	2	0	2	0	2	0	0	9/18	50
Coombes et al 22	2	0	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	0	1	17/20	85
Dan et al 23	2	1	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	20/20	100
de Vos et al 24	2	0	0	1	1	–	0	0	2	0	0	0	6/18	33
Desjardins-Charbonneau et al 25	0	0	2	1	0	2	0	2	0	2	0	0	9/20	45
Desjardins-Charbonneau et al 26	0	0	2	0	0	2	0	2	1	2	0	0	9/20	45
Desmeules et al 27	0	0	0	1	0	–	0	0	1	0	0	0	2/18	11
Desmeules et al 28	0	0	0	0	0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0/18	0
Desmeules et al 29	0	0	2	0	0	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	5/20	25
Dong et al 30	2	–	2	1	–	2	1	0	0	0	–	0	8/16	50
Dupley and Charalambous 31	0	–	2	1	–	2	1	0	0	0	–	0	6/16	38
Fitzpatrick et al 32	1	–	2	1	–	2	2	2	1	0	–	0	11/16	69
Haslerud et al 33	2	0	2	1	–	2	0	2	1	0	0	0	10/18	56
Heales et al 34	2	0	2	1	2	–	0	2	2	0	1	1	13/18	72
Huisstede et al 35	2	0	0	1	0	–	2	0	2	0	0	0	7/18	39
Ioppolo et al 36	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1/20	5
Krey et al 37	0	0	0	0	0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0/18	0
Lafrance et al 38	0	0	2	1	0	–	1	2	1	0	0	0	9/18	50
Larsson et al 39	1	0	0	0	0	–	0	0	2	0	0	0	3/18	17
Lee et al 40	1	0	0	0	0	–	2	0	2	0	0	1	6/18	33
Li et al 77	0	0	2	0	–	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	7/18	39
Liao et al 41	0	0	2	1	–	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	9/18	50
Lin et al 42	2	0	2	1	–	2	2	2	0	2	0	0	13/18	72
Lin et al 43	2	1	2	1	–	2	2	2	0	2	0	0	14/18	78
Lin et al 44	1	0	2	1	–	2	2	0	0	2	0	0	10/18	56
Littlewood et al45	2	0	0	1	0	–	1	0	2	0	0	0	6/18	33
Louwerens et al 46	1	0	2	1	0	2	1	2	2	0	1	1	14/20	70
Maffulli et al 47	0	0	0	0	0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0/18	0
Magnussen et al 48	0	0	0	1	0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	1/18	6
Martimbianco et al 49	2	0	2	1	–	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	16/18	89
Mendonça et al 50	2	0	2	1	–	2	2	0	2	2	1	1	15/18	83
Miller et al 51	0	0	2	1	–	2	2	0	1	2	0	0	10/18	56
Mohamadi et al 52	2	–	2	1	2	2	2	2	0	2	–	0	15/18	83
Murphy et al 53	2	–	2	1	–	2	0	2	2	2	–	1	14/16	88
Nogueira and Moura 54	0	0	0	0	0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	0/18	0
Ortega-Castillo and Medina-Porqueres 55	2	0	2	1	2	–	0	0	2	0	0	0	9/18	50
Sussmilch-Leitch et al 56	2	0	2	1	2	2	1	2	0	0	0	0	13/20	65
Tsikopoulos et al 57	0	0	2	1	2	–	2	2	0	2	0	0	11/18	61
Toliopoulos et al 58	0	0	0	0	0	–	0	0	1	0	0	0	1/18	6
Vander Doelen and Jelley 59	0	0	0	1	0	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	1/18	6
Verstraelen et al 60	0	0	2	1	2	2	2	2	0	2	0	0	13/20	65
Wasielewski and Kotsko 61	0	0	2	1	2	–	0	0	0	0	0	0	5/18	28
Woodley et al 62	2	0	2	1	2	2	1	2	2	0	0	1	15/20	75
Wu et al 63	0	0	2	1	–	2	2	2	0	2	0	0	11/18	61
Xiong et al 64	2	0	2	1	–	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	7/18	39
Yan et al 65	0	0	2	1	–	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	5/18	28
Zhang et al 66	0	0	2	1	2	2	0	2	0	2	0	0	11/20	55
Overall mean score	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	46.5
Overall Total for item	53/114	2/52	82/114	45/57	33/74	65/68	46/114	48/114	45/114	44/114	8/52	12/57
%	47%	4%	72%	79%	45%	96%	40%	42%	39%	39%	15%	21%

Item 1—was RoB assessment used in data synthesis and was it prespecified/explained in methods? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if used but not prespecified)—(PRISMA items 12, 19). Item 2—was RoB assessment performed on an outcome measure level? If not, do the authors state why in methods? (‘1’ if either fulfilled, ‘0’ if neither)—(PRISMA items 12, 19). Item 3—are principally summary measures predefined in methods and used in results? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if used but not prespecified)—(PRISMA item 13). Item 4—was the outcome measures of the SR predefined in methods? (‘0’ for no, ‘1’ for yes)—(PRISMA item 11). Item 5—is qualitative synthesis appropriate and was it prespecified/explained in methods? (‘0’ for neither or if only narrative description without pooling of results, ‘2 for both’, ‘1’ if appropriate but not prespecified or if prespecified but not done)—(PRISMA items 13, 14). Item 6—is quantitative synthesis appropriate and was it prespecified/explained in methods? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if appropriate but not prespecified)—(PRISMA items 20, 21). Item 7—was follow-up time points for data analyses predefined and used? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if used but not prespecified)—(Cochrane Back Review Group). Item 8—was missing data dealt with appropriately and was this prespecified in methods? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if appropriate but not prespecified)—(Cochrane Back Review Group). Item 9—was assessment of the strength of the evidence used and was it prespecified/explained in methods? (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if used but not prespecified)—(PRISMA item 24). Item 10—was the risk of publication bias acknowledged in methods and was it assessed where appropriate (‘0’ for neither, ‘2’ for both, ‘1’ if done but not prespecified)—(PRISMA items 15, 25). Item 11—was the strength of the evidence assessed on an outcome measure level? (‘1’ for yes, ‘0’ for no or if assessment of strength of evidence not performed)—(GRADE). Item 12—was the strength of the evidence assessed appropriately according to the prespecified tool? (‘1’ for yes, ‘0’ for no or if not performed/prespecified) (Strength of evidence assessment tools used).

GRADE, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; SR, systematic review.