Table 2.

Quality assessment scores.

A: Quality Assessment with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (Cohort and cross-sectional studies)
	Selection (4)				Comparability (3)			Outcome (3)			Sub-total assessment
	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	1	2	3	Selectiona	Comparabilityb	Outcomec
Cohort studies
Ogoina et al., 202013	*	-	*	*	-	-	-	*	*	-	Good	Poor	Good
Huhn et al.,200525	*	*	*	-	-	-	-	*	-	-	Good	Poor	Poor
Yinka-Ogunleye et al. 201915	*	*	*	*	-	-	-	*	-	-	Good	Poor	Poor
Boumandouki et al., 200729	*	-	-	-	-	-	-	*	-	-	Poor	Poor	Poor
Akar et al., 202016	*	-	-	-	-	-	-	*	-	-	Poor	Poor	Poor
Croft et al., 200728	-	-	*	*	-	-	-	*	*	*	Fair	Poor	Good
Adler et al., 202225	*	-	*	-	-	-	-	*	-	-	Fair	Poor	Poor
Reed et al., 200417	*	-	*	-	-	-	-	*	-	-	Fair	Poor	Poor
Reynolds., 200618	*	-	*	-	-	-	-	*	-	-	Fair	Poor	Poor
Ježek et al., 198730	*	-	*	-	-	-	-	*	-	-	Fair	Poor	Poor
Kalthan et al., 201633	*	-	*	-	-	-	-	*	-	-	Fair	Poor	Poor
Pittman et al., 202032	*	-	*	-	-	-	-	*	*	-	Fair	Poor	Good
Cross-sectional studies
Ogoina et al., 201914	*	*	*	*	-	-	-	-	*	-	Good	Poor	Poor
Hughes et al., 202125	-	-	*	*	-	-	-	*	*	*	Fair	Poor	Good

B: Quality Assessment with Joanna Briggs Quality Assessment Tool (case series)
Study	Inclusion criteriaaa	Measurement of conditionab	Identification of conditionac	Consecutive inclusionsad	Complete inclusion of participantsae	Reporting of participant demographicsaf	Reporting of clinical informationag	Outcome reportingah	Presenting site(s)/clinic(s) demographicsai	Statistical analysis appropriateaj	Overall assessment†
Learned et al., 200534	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	-	Good
Sejvar et al., 200426	*	*	*	-	*	*	*	*	*	-	Good
Reynolds et al., 200618	*	*	-	*	*	*	*	-	*	-	Good
Eseigbe et al., 202131	-	*	*	-	-	-	-	-	*	-	Poor

C: Quality Assessment with Joanna Briggs Quality Assessment Tool (case report)
Domain	Outcome
Were patient's demographic characteristics clearly described?	✓
Was the patient's history clearly described and presented as a timeline?	✓
Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described?	✓
Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the results clearly described?	✓
Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described?	✓
Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly described?	x
Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described?	✓
Does the case report provide takeaway lessons?	✓

Number of asterisks indicates total score for a domain out of the bracketed total in the column heading.

*indicates a domain was met. No studies had statistical analysis, so the domain was not relevant.

^aDomain score: 0-1 (Poor), 2 (Fair), 3+ (Good).

^bDomain score: 1 (Poor),1 (Fair), 2+ (Good).

^cDomain score: 0-1 (Poor), 2+ (Good).

^aaWere there clear criteria for inclusion in the case series?

^abWas the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants included in the case series?

^acWere valid methods used for identification of the condition for all participants included in the case series?

^adDid the case series have consecutive inclusion of participants?

^aeDid the case series have complete inclusion of participants?

^afWas there clear reporting of the demographics of the participants in the study?

^agWas there clear reporting of clinical information of the participants?

^ahWere the outcomes or follow up results of cases clearly reported?

^aiWas there clear reporting of the presenting site(s)/clinic(s) demographic information?

^ajWas statistical analysis appropriate?

^†Domain score: 0-3 (Poor), 4-6 (Fair), 7-10 (Good).