Table 2

Risk of bias assessments

First author (year)referenceCriteria*
123456789
Albrecht (2018)24++NA+++?+NA
Bakke (2016)25++NA++++++
Banks (2019)26++NA+?+?NA
Benson (2018)27++NA+?++NA
Bernier (2016)28++NA+?+?+NA
Bjarkø (2019)29++NA++?+
Bogstrand (2011)30++NA+++++
Chippendale (2017)31++NA+?+?NA
Chuang (2016)32++NA+?+?+NA
Cordovilla-Guardia (2017)33++NA++++?
Cordovilla-Guardia (2018)34++NA++++?
Dorji (2016)35+?NA+++++
Ekeh (2014)36++NA++?NA
Forson (2016)37++NA+?++NA
Martin (2017)39++NA+?+?
McAllister (2013)40++NA+++++
McLaughlin (2017)41++NA+++?
Nguyen (2014)42++NA++?+NA
Nweze (2016)43+?NA+?+++NA
Pandit (2014)44++NA+?+?NA
Peng (2016)45++NA+?+NA
Rundhaug (2015)46++NA+++?+?
Staton (2018)47++NA++++++
Strong (2016)48++NA++?+NA
Talving (2010)49++NA+++?NA
Valdez (2015)50++NA+?+?+NA
Ye (2013)53+?NA+??
Yue (2017)51++NA++?+?
Yue (2020)52++NA++?+?
  • Symbols: ‘+’ indicates low risk of bias, ‘–’ indicates high risk of bias, ‘?’ indicates unclear risk of bias, ‘NA’ indicates not applicable.

  • *Risk of bias criteria: 1. Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population? 2. Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way? 3. Was the sample size adequate? 4. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? 5. Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample? 6. Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition? 7. Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants? 8. Was there appropriate statistical analysis? 9. Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?.