Table 2 Reporting quality assessment
Study | CHEERS score | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title, abstract, and introduction (3) | Methods (14) | Results (4) | Discussion (1) | Other (2) | Total scores (24) | % of items scores | Reporting quality | |
Ajmi (2021) [37] | 2.5 | 10.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 17.5 | 72.9 | Medium |
Tan (2021) [21] | 2.5 | 14.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 22.5 | 93.8 | High |
Coughlan (2021) [28] | 2.5 | 12.5 | 4.0 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 21.5 | 89.6 | High |
Kim (2021) [40] | 2.5 | 11.0 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 19.0 | 79.2 | High |
Morii (2021) [38] | 2.5 | 11.0 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 20.0 | 83.3 | High |
Bayer (2020) [39] | 1.0 | 12.5 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 19.5 | 81.3 | High |
McMeekin (2019) [29] | 2.5 | 12.0 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 20.0 | 83.3 | High |
Stevens (2019) [23] | 2.5 | 13.0 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 22.0 | 91.7 | High |
Whetten (2018) [26] | 2.5 | 11.5 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 20.0 | 83.3 | High |
Yan (2018) [27] | 0.5 | 13.5 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 17.5 | 72.9 | Medium |
Lahr (2017) [33] | 3.0 | 10.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 19.0 | 79.2 | High |
Goff-Pronost (2017) [35] | 1.5 | 10.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 16.0 | 66.7 | Medium |
Espinoza (2017) [36] | 2.5 | 13.0 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 20.0 | 83.3 | High |
Torabi (2016) [25] | 2.0 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 16.0 | 66.7 | Medium |
Gyrd-Hansen (2015) [32] | 2.0 | 11.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 20.0 | 83.3 | High |
Penaloza-Ramos (2014) [34] | 2.5 | 12.5 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 21.0 | 87.5 | High |
Dietrich (2014) [31] | 2.5 | 9.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 16.5 | 68.8 | Medium |
McMeekin (2013) [30] | 1.5 | 10.5 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 17.5 | 72.9 | Medium |
Demaerschalk (2013) [22] | 2.5 | 13.0 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 20.0 | 83.3 | High |
Switzer (2013) [24] | 2.5 | 12.5 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 20.5 | 85.4 | High |