“…Nearly all of the articles had clearly defined objectives, but overall, the methodological quality was evaluated to be from poor to fair ( Table 3 ). Four articles were scored as being of good quality [ 6 , 24 , 29 , 30 ], six articles were scored as being of fair quality [ 21 , 25 , 33 , 38 , 39 , 40 ], and the remaining fourteen articles were scored as being of poor quality [ 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].…”