Results from quality assessments
Table 2 reported the quality details of bias
assessment. Briefly, participants random allocation was not
mention in all included articles except in one study that explained the
procedure of random sequence generation
(31). All of 9 articles did not report
allocation concealment. Most of articles represented low risk of bias
for selective reporting; nonetheless, 2 articles had high risk of bias
(30, 39)
and 2 articles had unclear risk of bias
(29, 37).
All articles had a low risk of bias based on incomplete outcome data.
Most of articles had a unclear or high risk of bias for blinding of
personnel and participants except just one article that had low risk of
bias as to participants and personnel blinding
(31). Also, all of articles had a high or
unclear risk for blinding outcome assessors. At last, about other
potential threats to validity, all of articles had low risk of bias.