Table 2.

Quality assessment of included studies.

Risk of Bias in the Included Rcts Assessed by the Risk of Bias Tool
Selection bias		Performance bias	Detection bias	Attrition bias	Reporting bias		Other bias	Study
Random sequence generation	Allocation concealment	Blinding of participants and personnel	Blinding of outcome assessment	Incomplete outcome data	Selective reporting		Anything else, ideally prespecified
low	low	low	low	low	low		low	Han et al., 2021 [19]
low	low	low	low	unclear	low		low	Frenck et al., 2021 [20]
Methdological quality in the case series and case reports assessed by Murad et al. checklist
Selection	Ascertainment		Causality				Reporting	Study
Does the patient(s) represent(s) the whole experience of the investigator (centre) or is the selection method unclear to the extent that other patients with similar presentation may not have been reported?	Was the exposure adequately ascertained?	Was the outcome adequately ascertained?	Were other alternative causes that may explain the observation ruled out?	Was there a challenge/rechallenge phenomenon?	Was there a dose-response effect?	Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur?	Is the case(s) described with sufficient details to allow other investigators to replicate the research or to allow practitioners make inferences related to their own practice?
0	1	1	0	N/A	N/A	0	0	Revon-Riviere et al., 2021 [21]
0	1	1	0	N/A	N/A	0	1	Snapiri et al., 2021 [22]
0	1	1	0	N/A	N/A	1	1	Minocha et al., 2021 [23]
0	1	1	0	N/A	N/A	1	1	McLean et al., 2021 [24]
0	1	1	1	N/A	N/A	0	1	Marshall et al., 2021 [25]
0	1	1	1	N/A	N/A	1	1	Schauer et al., 2021 [26]

0 = no; 1 = yes; N/A: Not applicable.