Table 4.
Summary of the analysis of the studies’ methodologies.
| References | Items Where Information Was Present | Information Not Present or Not Reported |
Total Applicable Items | Percentage of Reported Items |
Quality Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Appiah-Kusi et al., 2020 [10] | 9 | 5 | 14 | 64% | Fair |
| Ben-Menachem et al., 2020 [11] | 10 | 4 | 14 | 71% | Fair |
| Efron et al., 2020 [12] | 10 | 4 | 14 | 71% | Fair |
| Freeman et al., 2020 [13] | 14 | 0 | 14 | 100% | Good |
| Meneses-Gaya et al., 2020 [14] | 11 | 3 | 14 | 79% | Good |
| Thiele et al., 2020 [15] | 9 | 5 | 14 | 64% | Fair |
| VanLandingham et al., 2020 [16] | 7 | 7 | 14 | 50% | Fair |
| Crippa et al., 2021 [17] | 14 | 0 | 14 | 100% | Good |
| De Almeida et al., 2021 [18] | 11 | 3 | 14 | 79% | Good |
| Leweke et al., 2021 [19] | 9 | 5 | 14 | 64% | Fair |
| Mongeau-Pérusse et al., 2021 [20] | 11 | 3 | 14 | 79% | Good |
| Atieh et al., 2022 [21] | 10 | 1 | 14 | 71% | Good |
Quality Rating: Poor <50%, Fair 50–75%, Good >75% (See Table S1).