“…None of the included studies scored the maximum quality score of 9 points. Among the 14 reviewed studies, one (Trief et al, ) had a methodological quality score of 8, one (Wattana, Srisuphan, Pothiban, & Upchurch, ) had a score of 6, four (Atak, ; Hawkins, ; Moriyama et al, ; Wu et al, ) had 5, two (Siminerio, Ruppert, Emerson, Solano, & Piatt, ; Wu, Liang, Lee, Yu, & Kao, ) had 2, and the remaining 6 studies (Clarke, ; Johnson et al, ; Karakurt & Kas¸ıkçı, ; Landim, Zanetti, Santos, Andrade, & Teixeira, ; McEwen et al, ; Ve'g, Rosenqvist, & Sarkadi, ) had a quality score of 1 (Table ).…”