Table 7.
Summary of quality of systematic reviews
| Reference | Q1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? | Q2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? | Q3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? | Q4. Was the status of publication (i.e., grey literature) used as an Inclusion criterion? | Q5. Was a list of studies (Included and excluded) provided? | Q6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? | Q7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? | Q8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? | Q9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? | Q10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? | Q11. Was the conflict of interest included? | Total score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Afram et al. (2015) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Johl et al. (2016) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Khanassov et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| McCabe et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Millenaar et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| Waligora et al. (2018) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Mean | 5.83 |