Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies, as scored using the mixed Method Appraisal Tool
No | Author & Year | MMAT – 2018 Version¶ |  |  |  | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.5 | Score | % | Rating (29) | |||
1. | Althubaity et al., 2011 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 60 | Medium | |
2. | Blanquisco et al., 2017 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 100 | High | |
3. | Brismar et al., 2007 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 80 | Medium | |
4. | de Bresser et al., 2010 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 80 | Medium | |
5. | Dejgaard et al., 1991 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 60 | Medium | |
6. | Ding et al., 2019 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 60 | Medium | |
7. | El-Tamawy et al., 2016 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 40 | Low | |
8. | Moreira et al., 2015 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 80 | Medium | |
9. | Natovich et al., 2016 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 60 | Medium | |
10. | Perlmuter et al., 1984 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 60 | Medium | |
11. | Roman de et al., 2013 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 60 | Medium | |
12. | Zhang et al., 2021 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 60 | Medium | |
13. | Zhao et al., 2021 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 60 | Medium | |
Total | Â | Â | 2 (15%) | 12 (92%) | 13 (100%) | 3 (23%) | 13 (100%) | Â | Â | Â |