“…Regarding the methodological quality, assessed using the MMAT checklist, 13 only two studies (25%) achieved optimal scores, namely, Childs et al 14 and Wolff et al 15 Four studies (50%) achieved a good score, namely, Huemer et al, 16 Pfeiffer et al, 17 Spinhoven et al, 18 and Wolff and Fesseha, 19 and two other studies (25%) scored a methodological quality considered regular, namely, Huemer et al 20 and Longobardi et al 21 Major problems were the use of inappropriate measurement techniques (75% of the studies) and response rates below what is considered acceptable, factors that compromise the generalization of obtained results. Table 3 summarizes the quality evaluation based on the MMAT.…”