TABLE 2.
Quality of included studies
| Study | reporting | External validity | Internal validity ‐ bias | Internal validity ‐ confounding | Power | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Seo et al.,2020) | 9 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | Good (21) |
| (Kaatz et al.,2019) | 6 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | Poor (11) |
| (Bahl et al.,2019) | 9 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | Good (20) |
| (Zohourian et al.,2019) | 6 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 3 | Fair (17) |
| (Sharma et al.,2018) | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | Poor (9) |
| (Tso et al.,2017) | 7 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | Fair (18) |
| (Xu et al.,2016) | 10 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | Good (23) |
| (Lisova et al.,2015) | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | Poor (13) |
| (Caparas & Hu, 2014) | 9 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | Good (23) |
| (Sharp et al.,2014) | 9 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Good (22) |
| (Benali et al.,2013) | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | Poor (14) |
| (Moureau et al.,2002) | 7 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Fair (19) |