“…A total of 10 studies were excluded from the meta‐analysis; six studies had high‐risk assessments of four or more items according to RoB (Chlan, 1998; Çiftçi & Öztunç, 2015; Ciğerci & Özbayır, 2016; İzan & Birgili, 2020; Özer et al, 2013; Yaman Aktaş & Karabulut, 2016), and four studies had missing data that prevented them from being included in a meta‐analysis (authors were contacted but no response was received or data could not be determined with the RevMan calculator) (Beaulieu‐Boire et al, 2013; Chlan et al, 2013; Johnson et al, 2018; Korhan et al, 2011). - Selection bias: 13 studies had detailed descriptions of randomisation, such as computer‐generated randomisation lists and random number tables (Ames et al, 2017; Beaulieu‐Boire et al, 2013; Chahal et al, 2021; Chlan, 1998; Chlan et al, 2013; Dijkstra et al, 2010; Han et al, 2010; Kıray, 2019; Kurt & Çelik, 2019; Lee et al, 2005; Sanjuán Naváis et al, 2013; Uzelli Yılmaz et al, 2016; Wong et al, 2001).
- Allocation concealment: Six studies reported using opaque envelopes to meet the standards for allocation concealment methods (Ames et al, 2017; Beaulieu‐Boire et al, 2013; Chlan et al, 2013; Elay & Özkaya, 2020; Kıray, 2019; Sanjuán Naváis et al, 2013), while 11 studies were considered ‘unclear’(Chahal et al, 2021; Chiasson et al, 2013; Chlan, 1998; Cooke et al, 2010; Güngör Çağlar, 2018; Han et al, 2010; Johnson et al, 2018; Korhan et al, 2011; Lee et al, 2005; Lee et al, 2017; Wong et al, 2001).
…”