Table 3.

Quality assessment of each study included according to the ROBINS-I tool.²⁹

Authors	Confounding	Selection of participants	Deviations from de intended interventions	Missing data	Measurement of outcomes	Selection of reported results	Overal
Alam et al.8	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Kato et al.9	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Golhar et al.10	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Nasreen et al.11	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Grocholewicz et al.12	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Moderate
Navabi et al.13	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Choi et al.5	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Moderate
Munhoz et al.2	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Munhoz et al.14	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Pallagatti et al.15	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Carmo et al.16	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Moderate	Moderate
Kolte et al.17	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Moderate
Grgic et al.18	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Moderate
Alonso et al.19	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Low	Low	Low	Moderate
Jagelavičienė et al.20	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Majumder and Harum.21	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Kim et al.22	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Valerio et al.23	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Gaur et al.24	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Martínez – Maestre et al.25	Low	Moderate	Low	Moderate	Low	Low	Moderate
Khojastehpour et al.26	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Khatoonabadet al.27	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low
Mudda et al.3	Low	Low	Low	Low.	Low	Low	Low
Leite et al.28	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low

Overall risk of bias: equal to the most severe level of bias found in any domain.

Low: Comparable to a well-performed randomized trial;

Moderate: sound for a non-randomized study but not comparable to a rigorous randomized trial;

Serious: presence of important problems;

Critical: too problematic… to provide anu useful evidence on the effects of intervention