Table 2.
Methodological quality assessment by the modified QualSyst quality appraisal tool.
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Total | Summary score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stetter et al. (2020) | +2 | +1 | +1 | +1 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 16 | 0.80 |
| Stetter et al. (2019) | +2 | +1 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 17 | 0.85 |
| Hernandez et al. (2021) | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 19 | 0.95 |
| Gholami et al. (2020) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +1 | N/A | +1 | +2 | +2 | 15 | 0.83 |
| Wouda et al. (2018) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 19 | 0.95 |
| Derie et al. (2020) | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 19 | 0.95 |
| Liu et al. (2020) | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | 17 | 0.85 |
| Rapp et al. (2021) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 19 | 0.95 |
| Ngoh et al. (2018) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +1 | N/A | +2 | +2 | +2 | 16 | 0.89 |
| Young et al. (2020) | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | N/A | 1 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 0.78 |
| Robberechts et al. (2021) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 20 | 1.00 |
| Zrenner et al. (2018) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | N/A | +2 | +2 | +2 | 17 | 0.94 |
| Komaris et al. (2019) | +1 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 18 | 0.90 |
| Tan et al. (2019) | +2 | +1 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +1 | N/A | +1 | +2 | +2 | 14 | 0.78 |
| Watari et al. (2018a) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | 18 | 0.90 |
| Watari et al. (2018b) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 19 | 0.95 |
| Ahamed et al. (2019) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 18 | 0.90 |
| Ahamed et al. (2018) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 19 | 0.95 |
| Clermont et al. (2019a) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 19 | 0.95 |
| Dixon et al. (2019) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | N/A | +2 | +2 | +2 | 18 | 1.00 |
| Johnson et al. (2021) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | N/A | +2 | +2 | +2 | 17 | 0.94 |
| Tan et al. (2020) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 18 | 0.90 |
| Koska and Maiwald (2020) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | N/A | +2 | +2 | +2 | 17 | 0.94 |
| Matijevich et al. (2020) | +2 | +2 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +1 | +2 | +2 | +2 | +2 | 18 | 0.90 |
| 0.91 |
2 = “yes”, 1 = “partial”, 0 = “no”. N/A means that study should not be checked for this question. Summary score = total sum/total possible sum.
Q1: Question or objective clearly described?
Q2: Design evident and appropriate to answer the study question?
Q3: Method of subject selection or source of information/input variables is described and appropriate.
Q4: Subject characteristics or input variables/information sufficiently described?
Q5: Outcome well defined and robust to measurement/misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported?
Q6: Sample size appropriate?
Q7: Analysis described and appropriate?
Q8: Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results?
Q9: Results reported in sufficient detail?
Q10: Do the results support the conclusions?