Table 1.

Quality assessment “QualSyst”.

References	Question/ objectivedescribed	Appropriate Study design	Appropriate subjectselection	Characteristics sufficiently described	Random allocation	Researchersblinded	Subjects blinded	Outcome measures well defined and robust to bias	Appropriate samplesize	Analytic methodswell described	Estimate of variance reported	Controlled for confounding	Results reported indetail	Conclusion supported by results?	Rating
Renkai et al. (2015)	2	2	2	2	1	0	1	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	High
Lirong (2015)	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	2	1	2	2	0	2	2	Medium
Xingtong and Chao (2016)	2	2	2	0	NA	0	1	2	2	2	1	1	1	2	Medium
Rongchang and Xiaoyang (2015)	2	2	0	0	NA	0	0	2	2	2	1	0	0	1	Medium
Kai (2016)	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	High
Jingsong et al. (2016)	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	2	2	2	0	2	2	High
Ganfang (2017)	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	1	2	1	High
Xiaoni et al. (2019)	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	High
Xiao et al. (2021)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	High
Fan et al. (2021)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	High
Yu and Fumin (2007)	2	2	2	1	0	0	0	2	2	2	1	NA	2	2	Medium
Weifang et al. (2007)	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	High
Wenhai and Jiamei (2009)	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	High
Wei et al. (2010)	2	2	2	2	1	0	1	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	High
Ming et al. (2011)	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	2	2	2	2	0	2	2	High
Li et al. (2017a)	2	2	2	2	1	0	1	2	2	2	2	1	1	2	High
Rui et al. (2018)	2	2	2	1	1	0	0	2	2	2	2	1	2	1	Medium
Lan et al. (2018)	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	2	1	2	2	0	2	2	Medium
Zaihua et al. (2019)	2	2	1	1	1	0	0	2	2	2	2	0	1	2	Medium
Zhang X. et al. (2020)	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	2	1	2	2	0	2	1	Medium
Alavi et al. (2021)	2	2	2	2	1	0	0	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	High
Lu et al. (2020)	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	High
Yuxia et al. (2021)	2	2	2	2	2	0	0	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	High

NA, not applicable, 2 indicates yes, 1 indicates partial, 0 indicates no Quality; Quality score: ≥ 75% high, 55–75% medium, ≤ 55% low.

Calculate the summary score: Total sum = (number of “yes” ^* 2) + (number of “partials” ^* 1); Total possible sum = 28 – (number of “N/A” ^* 2).

Summary score: total sum/total possible sum.