Table 6. Quality assessment of narrative reviews using the SANRA criteria.

0 (low standard), 1 (moderate standard), 2 (high standard).

SANRA: Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles

Articles	Justification of importance for readership	Statement of aims/formulation of questions	Description of literature search	Referencing	Scientific reasoning	Appropriate presentation of data	Total
Luyt et al. [21]	2	1	1	1	1	1	7
Lee et al. [22]	2	2	1	1	2	2	10
Fernando al. [23]	2	2	1	1	2	1	9
Xia et al. [24]	1	2	1	2	2	1	9
Wong et al. [25]	2	2	1	2	1	1	9
Martin-Loeches et al. [26]	1	2	1	1	1	1	7
Tandogdu et al. [27]	1	2	2	1	1	1	8
Nasr [28]	1	1	1	2	1	1	7
Forsberg et al. [29]	2	1	1	2	1	2	9
Navon-Venezia et al. [30]	2	1	2	1	2	2	10
Gao et al. [31]	1	1	1	1	2	1	7
Niederman [32]	1	1	1	1	1	1	6
Lyons & Kollef [33]	1	1	1	1	1	2	7
Giuliano et al. [34]	1	2	1	2	1	2	9
Yim et al. [35]	1	2	1	1	1	1	7
Lee et al. [36]	2	1	1	1	2	2	9
Dahiya et al. [37]	1	1	1	2	1	1	7
Lockhart et al. [38]	2	1	1	2	2	2	10
Juan et al. [39]	2	2	1	2	2	1	10
Rao et al. [40]	1	2	1	1	2	2	9
Lima et al. [41]	2	1	2	1	2	1	9
D'Accolti et al. [42]	2	1	1	1	2	2	9
Morley et al. [43]	2	1	1	1	2	2	9
Valenzuela-Valderrama et al. [44]	1	2	1	1	2	1	8
Hemeg [45]	2	1	1	1	2	2	9
Bassetti & Righi [46]	1	1	1	1	2	1	7
Gomez-Simmonds & Uhlemann [47]	2	1	1	1	2	1	8
Lynch et al. [48]	2	1	1	1	1	1	7
Bougnoux et al. [49]	2	2	1	1	1	1	9
Septimus & Schweizer [50]	2	1	1	2	2	1	9
Pulzova et al. [51]	1	1	1	2	1	1	7
Li et al. [52]	1	2	1	1	2	1	8
Kidd et al. [53]	2	2	1	1	1	2	9
MacVane [54]	1	1	1	1	2	1	7
Pettigrew et al. [55]	2	1	2	2	2	1	9
Kollef et al. [56]	2	2	2	1	2	1	10
Geisinger & Isberg [57]	2	2	1	2	2	1	10
Cardozo et al. [58]	2	1	1	1	2	1	8
Ruiz-Garbajosa & Canton [59]	1	2	1	1	2	2	9
Chia et al. [60]	1	2	1	1	2	1	8
Silva-Santana et al. [61]	2	1	1	2	1	1	8
Mea et al. [62]	2	1	1	1	2	2	9
Jamal et al. [63]	1	2	1	2	2	1	9
Zhang et al. [64]	1	1	1	2	2	1	8
Dey et al. [65]	2	1	1	1	2	1	8
Pulingam et al. [66]	2	1	1	1	2	2	9