Table 3.

Methodological quality assessment of included reports.

Report	Mugheddu 2020 [22]	Manfreda 2019 [15]	Zarbafian 2019 [5]	Reddy 2017 [4]	Shah 2019 [18]	Sacchelli 2018 [32]	Apalla 2019 [11]	Reddy 2019 [17]	Fotiadou 2018 [33]	Jeon 2017 [34]
Quality	Fair	Fair	Fair	Fair	Fair	Fair	Fair	Fair	Fair	Fair
Report	Gonzalez-Cantero 2018 [35]	Gottlieb 2021 [36]	Kahn 2019 [37]	Nagata 2019 [38]	Uvais 2020 [39]	Vico-Alonso 2020 [40]	Melis 2020 [41]	Perrone 2017 [42]	Carpentieri 2020 [43]	Peitsch 2019 [44]
Quality	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Fair	Good	Fair	Good	Fair
Report	Takama 2020 [45]	Foti 2021 [46]	Di Lernia 2021 [47]	Aragon-Miguel 2019 [48]	Tampouratzi 2019 [49]	Papadavid 2018 [50]	Sahuquillo-Torralba 2020 [51]	Siciliano 2020 [52]	Lanna 2020 [53]	Lanna 2019 [54]
Quality	Fair	Fair	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Report	Balato 2020 [55]	Queiro Silva 2020 [21]	Ighani 2018 (1) [56]	Ighani 2018 (2) [57]	Ighani 2018 (3) [58]	Phan 2020 [59]	Ighani 2018 (4) [60]	Megna 2020 [61]	Del Alcazar 2020 [62]	Fremlin 2017 [63]
Quality	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Report	Foulkes 2017 [64]	Malara 2018 [65]	Daudén 2020 [14]	Kungurov 2019 [66]	Aragon-Miguel 2019 [67]	Bulic 2019 [68]	Fattore 2019 [69]	Magdaleno 2019 [70]	Magdaleno-Tapial 2019 [71]	Gioe 2021 [72]
Quality	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Report	Ibarguren 2021 [73]	Kurata 2021 [74]	Cohen-Sors 2021 [13]
Quality	Good	Good	Good

Case reports have been assessed through the JBI critical appraisal checklist for case reports. Cross-sectional studies have been assessed through the NIH quality assessment tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies. Each report has been assigned an overall quality marking of poor, good or fair.