Table 1

Risk of bias assessment

SelectionPerformanceDetectionAttritionSelective reportingOtherScoreCorrelation
Bullock 201828HighLow*LowLowLowLow2Ø
Chen 201617HighLowLowLowLowHigh4Yes
Dun 200720HighLowLowLowLowHigh4Ø
Elliott 198836HighLow*HighHighLowHigh8Yes
Escamilla 200214HighLowLowLowLowLow2Yes
Freeston 201549HighLowLowLowLowLow2Ø
Howenstein 201935HighHighUnclearLowLowLow5Yes
Jinji 201138HighLowLowLowLowLow2Yes
Kawamura 20176HighHighLowLowLowHigh6Yes
Keller 201530HighHighLowLowLowLow4Ø
Lehman 20133HighHighLowLowLowLow4Yes
Makhni 201831HighHighLowLowLowHigh6Yes
Matsuo 200125HighLowLowLowHighLow4Yes
Murata 200134HighLowLowLowHighHigh6Yes
Nakata 201329HighLowLowLowLowHigh4Yes
Oyama 201837HighLowLowHighLowLow4Yes
Oyama 201316HighLowLowHighLowLow4Yes
Oyama 201450HighLowLowHighLowLow4Ø
Post 201526HighLowLowHighLowLow4Yes
Ramsey 201951HighLowLowLowLowHigh4Ø
Roach 201452HighLowLowLowLowHigh4Yes
Robb 201033HighLowLowLowHighLow4Yes
Sgroi 201521HighHighLowLowLowHigh6
Solomito 201822HighLowHighLowLowHigh6Yes
Solomito 201524HighLowHighLowLowHigh6Yes
Stodden 200515HighLowLowLowLowHigh4Yes
Stodden 200123HighLowLowLowHighHigh6Yes
Tocci 201739HighLowLowLowLowHigh4Yes
Urbin 201327HighLowLowHighLowHigh6Yes
van Trigt 201818HighHighHighLowLowHigh8Yes
Wang 199532HighLowHighHighLowHigh8Yes
Werner 200819HighLowLowHighHighLow6Yes
Whiteside 20169HighLowLowLowLowHigh4Yes
Whiteside 201610HighLowLowLowLowHigh4Ø
  • Red: high risk of bias; green: low risk of bias; yellow: unclear risk of bias; blue: high risk of bias study (8–12); orange: moderate risk of bias studies (4–7); pink: low risk of bias studies (0–3).