Table 1.
Methodological quality and risk of bias of the studies included in the review.
| Evaluated Items | Urdampilleta et al., 2020 [2] | Lavoué et al., 2020 [3] | Viribay et al., 2020 [4] | Wardenaar et al., 2018 [5] | Martínez et al., 2018 [27] | Wardenaar et al., 2015 [6] | Costa et al., 2014 [8] | Kruseman et al., 2005 [33] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purpose | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Literature Review | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Study Design | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Blinding | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample Description | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Sample Size | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ethics and Consent | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Validity of Outcomes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Reliability of Outcomes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Intervention Description | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Statistical Significance | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Statistical Analysis | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Clinical Importance | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | NR |
| Conclusions | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Clinical Implications | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Study Limitations | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | NR | NR | NR | 1 |
| TOTAL | 12 | 8 | 12 | 13 | 10 | 12 | 11 | 11 |
| % | 75% | 61.53% | 75% | 81.25 | 62.5 | 75.0 | 68.8 | 68.8 |
| Methodological Quality | Good | Poor | Good | Very Good | Acceptable | Good | Good | Good |