Table 1

Overview risk of bias for the included studies

Author123456789101112Total
Al Bluwi et al 201126 UUUNNNYUYYNY4
Baldassin et al 200916 YUUYNYUUYYYY7
Caselli et al 199736 UUUUUUUUNYNN1
Dimou et al 200428 YUUNNYUUYYYY5
Abd El Salem et al 201131 UUUNYNYUYYYY6
Kavros 200522 UUUNNUYUYYYY5
Kriss 200323 UUUNNNUUYYYN3
Landorf et al 200615 YYUYUYYUYYYY9
Martin et al 200137 UUYNNNUNNYUN2
Oliveira et al 201519 YYNYNYYUYYYY9
Pfeffer et al 199920 UUYNNNYUYYYY6
Rome et al 200429 UUUNNNYUNYUY3
Roos et al 200632 YYUNNNUYYYYY7
Sharma and Loudon 201024 YYUNNYYUYYNY7
Turlik et al 199925 UUNNNUNUYYNY3
Vicenzino et al 201534 YYYNNYUUYYYY8
Walther et al 201330 YUYNNNYYYYNY7
Winemiller et al 200327 YYNYYYYYYYYY11
Wrobel et al 201521 YYYYNYYUYYNY9
Yucel et al 201333 YYYNNYNUYYNY7
  • Criteria items: 1. Was the method of randomisation adequate? 2. Was the treatment allocation concealed? 3. Were the groups similar at baseline regarding the most important prognostic indicators? 4. Was the patient blinded to the intervention? 5. Was the care provider blinded to the intervention? 6. Was the outcome assessor blinded to the intervention? 7. Were co-interventions avoided or similar? 8. Was the compliance acceptable in all groups? 9. Was the drop-out rate described and acceptable? 10. Was the timing of the outcome assessment similar in all groups? 11. Were all randomised participants analysed in the group to which they were allocated? 12. Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?