## 3 Results
### Results of the Methodology Quality Analysis  
The scores ranged from 7 to 24 out of a possible 26 points, with a mean score of 17.28 \(\pm\) 4.75 points. Only 6 (33.33%) of the 18 studies were considered high quality, with a score above 20 points [8; 37; 40; 41; 42; 44] (Table 3).  
The items with the highest scores were those related to the assessment of selection bias and the adequate description of the quality assessment. The items with the lowest scores were those related to language restrictions and the reporting of confidence intervals  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Study**} & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** & **11** & **12** & **13** & **Score** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2020 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & **24** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2020 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & **12** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2019 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\ [PERSON] et al., 2019 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 0 & **18** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2019 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 2 & **16** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2018 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & **23** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2016 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & **23** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2015 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 0 & **21** \\ [PERSON] and [PERSON], 2014 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & **10** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2013 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & **17** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2006 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 & **15** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2001 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & **16** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2019 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 0 & **19** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2018 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & **14** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2013 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 & **14** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2009 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 2 & **19** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2005 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & **7** \\ [PERSON] et al., 2020 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & **21** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* 2. Explicitly described to allow replication; 2. Adequate number and range of databases; 3. Alternative searches; 4. Adequate range of key words; 5. Non-English-language papers included in the search; 6. Inclusion criteria explicitly described to allow replication; 7. Excludes reviews which do not adequately address inclusion and exclusion criteria; 8. Two independent reviewers assessing selection bias; 9. Quality assessment explicitly described to allow replication; 10. Meta-analysis conducted on only homogeneous data or limitations to homogeneity discussed; 11. Confidence intervals/effect sizes reported where possible; 12. Conclusions supported by the meta-analysis or other data analysis findings 13. Conclusions address levels of evidence for each intervention/comparison.
* 3. Duality assessment scores.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Quality assessment scores.  
and effect sizes. The inter-rater reliability of the methodological quality assessment was high (\(\kappa=0.790\)).