Table 4. | Quality of included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool |
| Study | Selection | Comparability | Result | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mayta-Tovalino et al. [22] | ** | * | ** | ***** |
| Dvorak et al. [30] | * | * | ** | **** |
| Shabestari et al. [31] | *** | * | ** | ****** |
| Seki et al. [32] | ** | * | ** | ***** |
| Renvert et al. [33] | ** | * | ** | ***** |
| Bell and Bell [34] | *** | * | * | ***** |
| Astolfi et al. [35] | ** | * | * | **** |
| Suvarna et al. [36] | *** | * | * | ***** |
| Apaza-Bedoya et al. [37] | ** | * | ** | ***** |
| Romandini et al. [38] | ** | * | ** | ***** |
Studies that met five or more of the NOS scoring criteria were considered to be of good quality. |
.png)
.png)
.png)