Table 1. Quality assessment of studies.

AMSTAR 2, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2, Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool; NOS, Newcastle Ottawa Scale; SANRA 2, Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles 2; SR & MA, Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; RCT, randomized controlled trial; NR, narrative review; CSS, cross-sectional study.

Study type	Quality appraisal tool	Total score	Study features	Accepted score (>70%)	Accepted studies
AMSTAR 2	SR & MA	16	Sixteen items: 1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? 2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established before the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 11. If meta-analysis was justified, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? 12. If a  meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? 13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? 14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 15. If they performed quantitative synthesis, did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? 16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? Scored as YES or NO. Partial Yes was considered a point	10	Study [4], [5], [8]
SANRA 2	NR	12	Six items: justification of the article’s importance to the readership, statement of concrete aims or formulation of questions, description of the literature search, referencing, scientific reason, and appropriate presentation of data. Scored as 0, 1, or 2	9	Study [7]
New Castle and Ottawa	CSS	10	Selection: (maximum three stars). 1. Representativeness of the sample: (a) Truly representative of the average in the target population (all subjects or random sampling). (b) Somewhat representative of the average in the target population (non-random sampling). (c) Selected group of users. (d) No description of the sampling strategy. 2. Non-respondents: (a) Comparability between respondents' and non-respondents’ characteristics is established, and the response rate is satisfactory. (b) The response rate is unsatisfactory, or the comparability between respondents and non-respondents is unsatisfactory. (c) No description of the response rate or the characteristics of the responders and the non-responders. 3. Ascertainment of the exposure (risk factor): (a) Validated measurement tool. (b) Non-validated measurement tool, but the tool is available or described. (c) No description of the measurement tool. Comparability: (maximum two stars). 1. The subjects in different outcome groups are comparable, based on the study design or analysis. Confounding factors are controlled. (a) The study controls for the most important factor (select one). (b) The study control for any additional factor. Outcome: (maximum two stars). 1. Assessment of the outcome: (a) Independent blind assessment. (b) Record linkage. (c) Self-report. (d) No description. 2. Statistical test: (a) The statistical test used to analyze the data is clearly described and appropriate, and the measurement of the association is presented, including confidence intervals and the probability level (p-value). (b) The statistical test is not appropriate, not described or incomplete	8	Study [9]
Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool	RCT	7	Seven items: random sequence generation and allocation concealment (selection bias), selective outcome reporting (reporting bias), other sources of bias, blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Bias is assessed as low risk, high risk, or unclear	5	Study [3], [10], [11]