Table 2.
Methodological assessment of the included studies.
| Study | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balsalobre-Fernández et al. [40] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Low |
| Balsalobre-Fernández et al. [53] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Low |
| Balsalobre-Fernández et al. [54] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | High |
| Balsalobre-Fernández et al. [55] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | High |
| Balsalobre-Fernández et al. [41] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Low |
| Barrajón & Juan [56] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Brooks et al. [57] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Cerezuela-Espejo et al. [58] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | High |
| Courel-Ibáñez et al. [59] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | High |
| de Sá et al. [60] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Gallardo-Fuentes et al. [61] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Haynes et al. [37] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Martínez-Cava et al. [39] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | High |
| Pérez-Castilla et al. [62] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Low |
| Pérez-Castilla et al. [63] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Pérez-Castilla et al. [64] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Romero-Franco et al. [65] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Low |
| Stanton et al. [66] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Stanton et al. [67] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Thompson et al. [68] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Viecelli et al. [69] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
| Yang et al. [70] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Low |
| Yingling et al. [71] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
Note: provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was performed and what was found (item 1); state specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses (item 2); provide the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants (item 3); for each variable of interest, offer sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group (item 4); explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why (item 5); give characteristics of study participants (item 6); summarize key results with reference to study objectives (item 7); discuss limitations of the study, considering sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias (item 8); give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar studies, and other relevant evidence (item 9); provide the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based (item 10).