Table 3.

Methodological Quality Assessment for Inclusion in the study

Study	Item1	Item2	Item3	Item4	Item5	Item6	Item7	Item8	Item9	Item10	Sum score
Brown 2009 [49]	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	5
Eggenberger 2016 [28]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	9
Gothe 2016 [62]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	9
Albinet 2016 [29]	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	5
Kalbe 2018 [50]	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	1	7
Liu-ambrose 2010 [37]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	8
Hariprasad 2013 [43]	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	5
Norouzi 201 9[38]	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	5
Nouchi 2013 [51]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10
Lachman 2006 [39]	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	7
Ferreira 2015 [30]	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	7
Vaughn 2014 [52]	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	7
Fabre 2002 [31]	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	6
Shan 2016 [44]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	9
Li 2016 [45]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	10
Yang 2019 [46]	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	5
Hong 2017 [40]	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	6
Bae 2019 [53]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	8
Damirchi 2018 [54]	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	5
Donnezan 2018 [28]	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	6
Yoon 2018 [41]	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	5
Eggermont 2009 [32]	1	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	8
Lam 2010 [47]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	9
Scherder 2005 [33]	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	7
Sungkarat 2016 [48]	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	7
Zhu 2018 [34]	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	0	1	1	8
Lü 2015 [42]	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	1	7
Nishiguchi 2015 [35]	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	6

Item 1, randomization; Item 2, concealed allocation; Item 3, similar baseline; Item4, blinding of subjects; Item 5, blinding of therapists; Item 6, blinding of assessors; Item 7, more than 85% retention; Item 8, intent-to-treat analysis; Item 9, between-group comparison; Item 10, point measure and measures of variability; 1, explicitly described and present in details; 0, absent, inadequately described, or unclear