*2.3. Study Selection*

Following the search, all identified citations were collated and uploaded into EndNote X8.0.1 and duplicates removed. Titles and abstracts were screened by one reviewer (A.W.) for assessment against the inclusion criteria for the review. Potentially relevant studies were retrieved in full and their citation details imported into the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI, Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide, Australia) [15]. The full text of selected citations was assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers (A.W. and T.B.). Disagreements that arose between the reviewers at each stage of the study selection process were resolved through discussion. The results of the search, with reasons for study exclusions, are presented in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram (Figure 1) [16].

**Figure 1.** The PRISMA flow diagram for the systematic review detailing the database searches, the number of abstracts screened and the full texts retrieved.

### *2.4. Assessment of Methodological Quality*

Eligible studies were critically appraised for methodological quality by two independent reviewers (A.W. and T.B.) using the SYRCLE risk of bias tool [17]. Any disagreements that arose were resolved through discussion. All studies, regardless of the results of their methodological quality, underwent data extraction and synthesis. Consideration of the methodological quality of individual studies is discussed in the narrative synthesis.
