QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Carmargo 2003

Griffiths 2013

Normansell 2018

Travers 2012a

Watts 2012

Rodrigo 2006

Vezina 2014

Knightly 2017

Mitra 2005

Travers 2012b

Griffiths 2016

Jat 2012

Korang 2016

Domain 1. Study eligibility criteria

• Did the review adhere to predefined objectives and eligibility criteria?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Were the eligibility criteria appropriate for the review question?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Were eligibility criteria unambiguous?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

PY

Yes

PY

Yes

• Were all restrictions in eligibility criteria based on study characteristics appropriate?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

PY

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Were any restrictions in eligibility criteria based on sources of information appropriate?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

DOMAIN 1 ‐ OVERALL

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Domain 2. Identification and selection of studies

• Did the search include an appropriate range of databases/electronic sources for published and unpublished reports?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Were methods additional to database searching used to identify relevant reports?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Were the terms and structure of the search strategy make it likely to retrieve as many eligible studies as possible?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Were restrictions based on date, publication format, or language appropriate?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Were efforts made to minimise error in selection of studies?

Yes

Noa

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Nob

Noc

Nod

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

DOMAIN 2 ‐ OVERALL

Low concern

High concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

High concern

High concern

High concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Domain 3. Data collection and study appraisal

• Were efforts made to minimise errors in data collection?

PY

PY

Yes

PY

Yes

PY

PY

Yes

NIe

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Were sufficient study characteristics available for both review authors and readers to be able to interpret the results?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Were all relevant study results collected for use in the synthesis?

Yes

PY

PY

Yes

PY

PY

PY

Yes

PY

PY

Yes

Yes

PY

• Was risk of bias (or methodological quality) formally assessed by appropriate criteria?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Were efforts made to minimise error in risk of bias assessment?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

DOMAIN 3 ‐ OVERALL

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Unclear concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Domain 4. Synthesis and findings

• Did the synthesis include all studies that it should?

Yes

PY

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

PY

Yes

PY

PY

Yes

Yes

• Were all predefined analyses reported or departures explained?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Was the synthesis appropriate given the nature and similarity of research questions, study designs, and outcomes across included studies?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Was between‐study variation (heterogeneity) minimal or addressed in the synthesis?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Were the findings robust (e.g. as demonstrated through funnel plot or sensitivity analyses)?

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

• Were biases in primary studies minimal or addressed in the synthesis?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

DOMAIN 4 ‐ OVERALL

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Low concern

Final assessment of bias

• Did interpretation of the findings address all concerns identified in domains one through four?

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Was the relevance of identified studies to the review's research question appropriately considered?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

• Did the review authors avoid emphasising results on the basis of their statistical significance?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

RISK OF BIAS IN THE REVIEW

LOW RISK

HIGH RISK

LOW RISK

LOW RISK

LOW RISK

LOW RISK

HIGH RISK

HIGH RISK

HIGH RISK

LOW RISK

LOW RISK

LOW RISK

LOW RISK