Table 4.
Assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias in the 29 articles included in this systematic review.
| Cohort Study | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Verification List | Assessment | Interpretation |
| Brown et al. [37] | Checklist SIGN Methodology 3 (cohort studies) | Acceptable | Medium risk |
| Carpenter et al. [38] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Chahine et al. [39] | Low quality | High risk | |
| Feehan et al. [40] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Idolazzi et al. [42] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Johannesen et al. [44] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Kumar et al. [45] | Acceptable | Medium risk | |
| Li et al. [46] | Low quality | High risk | |
| Lindahl et al. [47] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Maines et al. [48] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Malmgren et al. [49] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Nasomyont et al. [53] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Okawa et al. [55] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Putman et al. [57] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Voumiries et al. [62] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Wagner et al. [63] | High quality | Low risk | |
| Reports and case series | |||
| August et al. [35] | Murad et al. Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports | 2/5 | High risk |
| Bredell et al. [36] | 5/5 | Low risk | |
| Ierardo et al. [43] Milano et al. [50] |
1/5 | High risk | |
| 4/5 | Medium risk | ||
| Moeini et al. [51] | 0/5 | High risk | |
| Naidu et al. [52] | 5/5 | Low risk | |
| Ngan et al. [54] | 4/5 | Medium risk | |
| Schwartz et al. [58] | 4/5 | Medium risk | |
| Simm et al. [59] | 5/5 | Low risk | |
| Tessaris et al. [60] | 5/5 | Low risk | |
| Uday et al. [61] | 5/5 | Low risk | |
| Non-randomized clinical trials | |||
| Goldsby et al. [41] | Sterne et al. ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions | Low risk | Low risk |
| Randomized clinical trials | |||
| Piperno-Neumann et al. [56] | Checklist SIGN Methodology 2 (controlled trials) | High quality | Low risk |