Two researchers (XLX and QFS), independently evaluated the methodological quality of each reviewed study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools 2.0 (ROB 2.0) to assess the risk of bias in randomized trials. Any discrepancies between their assessments were resolved through discussion, or consultation with a third researcher (GQC) was sought if a consensus could not be reached. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed across several domains, including the randomization process, adherence to intended interventions, handling of missing outcome data, measurement of outcomes, and selection of reported results. Each of these domains was categorized as Low risk, High risk, or Some concerns according to the ROB 2.0 criteria.
Copyright and License information: The Author(s) ©2024 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Do you have any questions about this protocol?
Post your question to gather feedback from the community. We will also invite the authors of this
article to respond.