|
Meyer et al. (2022)
16
|
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria were clearly defined Review methods were established before review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42021228806) Review authors did screen multiple databases and references of relevant review articles Literature screening was conducted by 2 independent review authors Search timeframe was not restricted Review authors provided adequate detail of included studies Risk of bias was assessed for all included studies using the RoB2 Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs Combination of results were assessed using pooled relative risk, risk difference and mean difference obtained using models with random effects Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q-test and quantified using the I2 value, and heterogeneity was discussed Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots
|
Review authors did not justify included study designs or exclusion criteria Justification for publication restrictions were not provided (Non-RCTs study design, English only) Unclear if data extraction was performed in duplicate List of excluded studies and justification for exclusion was not provided Review authors did not report on sources of funding for included studies Potential impact of risk of bias for individual studies on the results on the meta-analysis was not assessed Review authors did not report if they had any conflicts of interest or received any funding
|
|
Tang et al. (2022)
17
|
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria were clearly defined and included PICO components Review authors did screen multiple databases and reference of included and relevant studies Literature screening was conducted by 2 independent review authors No publication restrictions were included in the search Data extraction was conducted by 2 independent review authors Review authors provided adequate detail of included studies Risk of bias was assessed for all included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa score for non-randomized studies Combinations of results were assessed using relative risk and mean difference while considering heterogeneity within and between studies Heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-square test and I2 Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots The review authors reported receiving no funding or potential conflict of interest
|
Unclear if review protocol was registered in advance Review authors did not justify included study designs or exclusion criteria List of excluded studies was not provided Review authors did not report on sources of funding for included studies
|
|
Chaudhry et al. (2021)
18
|
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria were clearly defined Review authors did screen multiple databases Literature search screening was conducted by 2 independent review authors Search timeframe was not restricted Review authors provided adequate detail of included studies Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB tools for RCTs Review authors disclosed any potential conflicts of interest
|
Unclear if review protocol was registered in advance Review authors did not justify included study designs or exclusion criteria Justification for publication restrictions were not provided (non-RCT study designs, English studies only) Unclear if authors searched references or any additional sources of information Unclear if data extraction was performed in duplicate List of excluded studies was not provided Description of statistical analyses was not provided Risk of bias was not accounted for in the interpretation of discussion of results Publication bias was not assessed Review authors did not report on funding sources of included studies Review authors did not report if they received any funding
|
|
Elhenawy et al. (2021)
19
|
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria were clearly defined Review methods were established before review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42015016771) Review authors did screen multiple databases and reference of included and relevant studies No publication restrictions were included in the search Literature search screening was conducted by 2 independent review authors Data extraction was conducted by 2 independent review authors Review authors provided adequate detail of included studies Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB tools Combinations of results were assessed using risk ratios and mean difference while considering heterogeneity within and between studies The Cochrane’s Q-test was used to calculate the statistical heterogeneity among studies Overall quality of evidence was determined using GRADE which included an assessment of publication bias Potential impact of risk of bias for individual studies on the results on the meta-analysis was assessed Review authors did disclose any potential conflicts of interest
|
Review authors did not justify included study designs or exclusion criteria List of excluded studies was not provided Review authors did not report funding sources of included studies Review authors did not report if they received any funding
|
|
Jones et al. (2021)
20
|
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria were clearly defined Review methods were established before review was conducted Review authors did screen multiple databases and reference of included and relevant studies Literature search screening was conducted by 2 independent review authors Search timeframe was not restricted Review authors provided adequate detail of included studies Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB tools Overall quality of evidence was determined using GRADE which included an assessment of publication bias Risk of bias was accounted for in the interpretation of discussion of results The review authors reported funding source and potential conflict of interest
|
Review authors did not justify exclusion criteria List of excluded studies was not provided Unclear if data extraction was performed in duplicate Unclear if additional restrictions were included in the literature search (e.g., language) Description of statistical analyses was not provided Review authors did not report funding sources of included studies
|
|
Moon et al. (2021)
21
|
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria were clearly defined Review methods were established before review was conducted (PROSPERO: 160868) Review authors did screen multiple databases Literature search screening was conducted in duplicate with multiple authors Data extraction was performed by one author and checked by another author Review authors provided adequate detail of included studies Risk of bias was assessed for all included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa score for non-randomized studies The review authors reported receiving no funding or potential conflict of interest
|
Review authors did not justify included study designs or exclusion criteria Justification for publication restrictions were not provided (Potential time frame restrictions, English studies only) Unclear if authors searched references or any additional sources of information List of excluded studies was not provided Unclear if publication bias was assessed Description of statistical analyses was not provided Risk of bias was not accounted for in the interpretation of discussion of results Review authors did not report funding sources of included studies
|
