Table 3

Quality assessment—quantitative studies

Study id	Aim of evaluation	Research design	Sample size	Power calculation	Number of groups	Method of allocation	Allocation concealment	Blinding	Loss to follow-up	Data collection method	Significance measures	Data analysis method	Reported biases or confounders	Relevance	Ethics	Strength of design	Strength of numbers	Quality of information	Quality of study	Overall weighting
Allen 201732	+	–	+	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	+	+	+	+	+	?	?	?	?	Low
Almoosa 200922	+	+	+	+	+	–	–	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	?	?	?	?	Moderate
Choi 201316	+	–	+	–	+	–	–	–	–	–	+	+	+	+	–	?	?	?	?	Low
Cray 198928	+	–	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	?	+	+	–	+	?	–	+	?	–	Low
Dalal 201618	–	–	+	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	+	+	+	+	+	?	?	?	?	Very low
Davidson 201029	+	+	+	–	+	–	–	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	?	?	?	?	Moderate
Dykes 201719	+	–	+	+	–	–	–	–	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	?	?	?	?	Low
Garrouste-Orgeas 201623	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	Very high
Huang 201825	+	+	+	+	+	–	–	–	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	–	+	+	+	Moderate
Huffines 201321	+	+	+	–	+	–	–	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	?	?	?	?	?	Moderate
Jacobowski 201033	+	?	+	?	+	?	?	?	?	+	+	+	+	+	+	?	+	?	?	Moderate
Marshall 201630	+	+	+	–	?	–	–	–	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	?	+	Moderate
Prichard 201535	+	?	+	?	+	–	?	?	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	?	+	+	?	High
Randall-Curtis 201626	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	?	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	Very high
Shaw 201427	+	?	+	+	+	?	?	?	–	+	+	+	+	+	+	?	+	+	?	High
Weber 201834	+	+	+	+	+	?	?	?	?	+	+	+	+	+	+	?	?	?	?	High
White 201831	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	?	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	Very high

+, low concern; –, high concern; ?, unclear. Quality assessment tool elaborated in Xyrichis et al.13