Table 1.

Methodological quality assessment.

Reference	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Total
Ammar et al., 2020 [35]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	80%
Baker et al., 2004 [36]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	80%
Berzosa er al., 2011 [37]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	80%
Bogdanis et al., 2013 [38]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	60%
Bouzid et al., 2014 [39]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	70%
Djordjevic et al., 2012 [40]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	70%
Falone et al., 2010 [41]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	70%
Finkler et al., 2016 [42]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	60%
Fisher et al., 2011 [43]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	60%
Groussard et al., 2003 [44]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	60%
Hajizadeh et al., 2017 [45]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	80%
Jammes et al., 2004 [46]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	60%
Jamurtas et al., 2018 [47]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	80%
Kyparos et al., 2007 [48]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	1	70%
Miyazaki et al., 2001 [49]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	1	70%
Parker et al., 2014 [50]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	60%
Parker et al., 2018 [51]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	80%
Seifi-Skishahr et al., 2008 [52]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	60%
Steinberg et al., 2007 [53]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	60%
Wadley et al., 2016 [54]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	80%
Wiecek et al., 2018 [55]	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	0	1	60%
	Reporting					Internal validity—bias		Internal validity—confounding		Power	Average
TOTAL/21	21	21	21	21	0	0	21	11	8	21	69%