Table 2.
Study quality and risk of bias for randomised trials (n = 12) 1.
| Author, Year (Study Location) |
Random Sequence Generation | Allocation Concealment | Selective Reporting | Blinding | Blinding of Outcome Assessment | Incomplete Outcome Assessment | Overall Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adamo et al., 2018 [36] (Italy) | low | unclear | high | high | high | low | poor |
| Damavandi et al., 2012 [37] (Iran) | low | unclear | low | high | low | low | good |
| Damavandi et al., 2013 [38] (Iran) | low | unclear | low | high | low | low | good |
| Deon et al., 2018 [39] (Italy) | low | unclear | low | high | low | low | good |
| Devi et al., 2016 [40] (New Zealand) | low | low | low | high | low | low | good |
| Di Renzo et al., 2017 [41] (Italy) | low | low | low | high | low | low | good |
| Guaraldi et al., 2018 [42] (Italy) | low | low | low | high | low | low | good |
| Tey et al., 2011 [43] (New Zealand) | low | low | low | high | low | low | good |
| Tey et al., 2011 [44] (New Zealand) | low | low | low | high | low | low | good |
| Tey et al., 2011 [45] (New Zealand) | low | low | low | high | low | low | good |
| Tey et al., 2012 [46] (New Zealand) | low | low | low | high | low | low | good |
| Tey et al., 2013 [47] (New Zealand) | low | low | low | high | low | low | good |
| Tey et al., 2015 [48] (New Zealand) | low | low | low | high | low | low | good |
| Tey et al., 2017 [49] (New Zealand) | low | low | low | high | low | low | good |
| Yilmaz et al., 2019 [50] (Turkey) | unclear | unclear | low | high | high | low | fair |
1 Overall quality: good (low risk of bias in at least three domains), fair (low risk of bias in at least two domains), poor (low risk of bias in one or less domain). There were three studies with two publications, each reporting different study outcomes, i.e., the first study [37,38], the second study [43,44], and the third study [45,46].