Table 3.
Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC; risk of bias) assessment of each study included in the review [55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66].
| First Author, Year of Publication (Reference) | Rauh-Pfeiffer, 2014 [55] | Demmelmair, 2019 [56] | Ogunlade, 2011 [64] | Choudhury, 2021 [62] | Black, 2021 [65] | Kvestad, 2018 [60] | Roberts, 2020 [66] | Katsaras, 2004 [58] | Aboud, 2017 [61] | Øyen, 2018 [57] | Schneider, 2018 [63] | Ryan, 2008 [59] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Research QCC | ||||||||||||
| 1. Was the research question clearly stated? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 3. Were study groups comparable? | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y |
| 4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | Y |
| 5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y |
| 6. Were intervention/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| 8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 9. Were conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 10. Is bias due to study’s funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | Y | Y | N | Y |
| OVERALL QUALITY | (+) | (+) | (Ø) | (Ø) | (+) | (+) | (+) | (Ø) | (Ø) | (Ø) | (Ø) | (+) |
Plus/positive (+); neutral (Ø).