Table 2.
Method for assessing quality and risk of bias
| Article | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.5 | Score (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alves et al. [6] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 56.3 (S) |
| Arellano et al. [33] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50 (S) |
| Atkison et al. [10] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 75 (L) |
| Connaboy et al. [34] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 81.3 (L) |
| de Jesus et al. [35] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50 (S) |
| Elipot et al. [14] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 56.3 (S) |
| Higgs et al. [15] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 81.3 (L) |
| Hochstein and Blickhan, [7] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50 (S) |
| Hochstein and Blickhan [17] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 62.5 (S) |
| Hochstein et al. [44] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50 (S) |
| Houel et al. [36] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 75 (L) |
| Houel et al. [37] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 81.3 (L) |
| Ikeda et al. [41] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 75 (L) |
| Jensen and McIlain [45] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 56.3 (S) |
| Lyttle et al. [43] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 68.8 (L) |
| Lyttle and Blanksby [42] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50 (S) |
| Miwa et al., [46] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50 (S) |
| Shimojo et al. [47] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 56.3 (S) |
| Shimojo et al. [16] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 75 (L) |
| Shimojo et al. [48] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 87.5 (L) |
| Shimojo et al. [38] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 62.5 (S) |
| Wang and Liu [39] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 62.5 (S) |
| Willems et al. [24] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 75 (L) |
| Yamakawa et al. [40] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 62.5 (S) |
| Yamakawa et al. [49] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 68.8 (L) |
| Total criteria met/25 | 8 | 25 | 25 | 7 | 22 | 8 | 0 | 25 | 7 | 17 | 19 | 25 | 23 | 25 | 12 | 11 | - |
(1.1) study design is clearly stated; (1.2) the objectives/purpose of the study are clearly defined; (1.3) the design of the study adequately tests the hypothesis; (2.1) the criteria for the inclusion of subjects are clearly described; (2.2) the characteristics of the population are clearly described; (2.3) the study sample is representative of the population intended to the study; (2.4) a description of how the study size was arrived at is provided; (3.1) the testing methods are clearly described; (3.2) the measurement tools used are valid and reliable; (3.3) the statistical methods used are well described; (3.4) the statistical tests used to analyse the data are appropriate; (4.1) the results are well described; (4.2) the information provided in the paper is sufficient to allow a reader to make an unbiased assessment of the findings of the study; (4.3) confounding factors are identified; (4.4) sponsorships/conflicts of interest are acknowledged; and (4.5) any limitations to the study are identified. Note: the risk of bias score for an article (given as a percentage) is calculated through the addition of the score from each criteria being met divided by the maximum possible score across all criteria (16), multiplied by 100. L low risk of bias (67–100%), S satisfactory risk of bias (34–66%), H high risk of bias