Table 6. Quality appraisal of included studies.
| Study | Qualsyst (KMET) | GUILD and RECORD | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Score (%) | Methodology Quality | Score (%) | Methodology Quality | |
| Egulend et al. (2009) | 50% | Adequate | 24% | Poor |
| Hansson et al. (2018) | 68% | Good | 10% | Poor |
| Kisely et al. (2019) | 91% | Strong | 26% | Poor |
| Kisely et al. (2018) | 91% | Strong | 22% | Poor |
| Kisely et al. (2019) | 91% | Strong | 22% | Poor |
| Olsen et al. (2018) | 86% | Strong | 21% | Poor |
| Parrish et al. (2016) | 82% | Strong | 33% | Poor |
| Parrish et al. (2017) | 86% | Strong | 79% | Good |
| Raghavan et al. (2017) | 86% | Strong | 33% | Poor |
| Sidebotham et al. (2000) | 60% | Good | 10% | Poor |
| Sidebotham et al. (2003) | 80% | Strong | 16% | Poor |
| Sidebotham et al. (2006) | 91% | Strong | 29% | Poor |
| Sidebotham et al. (2002) | 91% | Strong | 16% | Poor |
| Teyhan et al. (2019) | 91% | Strong | 28% | Poor |
| Austin et al. (2019) | 86% | Strong | 72% | Good |
| Austin et al. (2018) | 95% | Strong | 71% | Good |
| Hansson et al. (2020) | 73% | Good | 9% | Poor |
| Abajobir et al. (2017) | 95% | Strong | 22% | Poor |
| Abajobir et al. (2017) | 95% | Strong | 26% | Poor |
| Abajobir et al. (2016) | 95% | Strong | 26% | Poor |
| Abajobir et al. (2016) | 95% | Strong | 26% | Poor |
| Abajobir et al. (2017) | 91% | Strong | 29% | Poor |
| Strathean et al. (2009) | 95% | Strong | 47% | Poor |
| Mills et al. (2013) | 95% | Strong | 22% | Poor |
| Mills et al. (2016) | 95% | Strong | 21% | Poor |
| Mills et al. (2014) | 95% | Strong | 21% | Poor |
| Mills et al. (2019) | 91% | Strong | 16% | Poor |
| Mills et al. (2017) | 100% | Strong | 16% | Poor |
| Parrish et al. (2011) | 95% | Strong | 19% | Poor |
| Raghavan et al. (2012) | 100% | Strong | 45% | Poor |
| Median | 91% | Strong | 23% | Poor |