“…Of note, each of the studies included in this review was rated by the QUADAS-2 as having at least some risk of bias. More specifically, the main issues within each of the four domains of the QUADAS-2 were as follows: (a) Patient Selection, "Consideration of sex or gender differences is missing" (11 of 17 studies) (Bazarian et al, 2014;Brett et al, 2021;Champagne et al, 2019;Churchill et al, 2017;Holcomb et al, 2021;Koerte et al, 2012a;Kuzminski et al, 2018;Lefebvre et al, 2021;Mayinger et al, 2018;Saghafi et al, 2018;Slobounov et al, 2017), or sample was too small (i.e., ≤ 15 individuals), or control group was missing (11 of 17 studies) (Bahrami et al, 2016;Brett et al, 2021;Champagne et al, 2019;Holcomb et al, 2021;Kawata et al, 2020;Koerte et al, 2012b;Kuzminski et al, 2018;Lipton et al, 2013;Mayinger et al, 2018;Saghafi et al, 2018;Slobounov et al, 2017); (b) Index Test, "No or sparse information is provided regarding the evaluation of the quality of the imaging data" (10 of 17 studies) (Bahrami et al, 2016;Bazarian et al, 2014;Champagne et al, 2019;Churchill et al, 2017;Holcomb et al, 2021;Kawata et al, 2020;Koerte et al, 2012a;Lipton et al, 2013;Slobounov et al, 2017;Strauss et al, 2021); (c) Reference Standard, "Objective quantification of RHI is missing" (10 of 17 studies) (Brett et al, 2021;Churchill et al, 2017;…”