“…In 10 studies (Eychmüller et al, 2021;Franciosi et al, 2019;Groenvold et al, 2017;Grudzen et al, 2016;Johnsen et al, 2020;Scarpi et al, 2019;Schenker et al, 2018;Slama et al, 2020;Tattersall et al, 2014;Vanbutsele et al, 2018), researchers adopted appropriate random sequence generation and assignment methods; all other studies did not provide sufficient information. In eight studies (do Carmo et al, 2017;Maltoni et al, 2016;Rodin et al, 2022;Scarpi et al, 2019;Schenker et al, 2018;Slama et al, 2020;Temel et al, 2010;Zimmermann et al, 2014;42%) there was insufficient detail about double-blind treatment, and in 13 studies (Bakitas et al, 2009;Eychmüller et al, 2021;Groenvold et al, 2017;Grudzen et al, 2016;Johnsen et al, 2020;Maltoni et al, 2016;McCorkle et al, 2015;Patil et al, 2021;Rodin et al, 2022;Temel et al, 2010Temel et al, , 2020Vanbutsele et al, 2018;Zimmermann et al, 2014), there was a low risk of incomplete outcome data. Only two studies (McCorkle et al, 2015;Scarpi et al, 2019) were considered at high risk of reporting bias.…”