*2.5. Selection Process*

The search results were imported to Rayyan for the screening process. Two investigators (KB and MS) were involved in the screening of titles and abstracts to assess the articles' relevance with the research objective (Figure 1, Identification step). During the second level of screening, KB and MS independently evaluated all potential full-text articles (Figure 1, Screening step). In case of disagreements, the consensus among reviewers was built through discussions. The included publications addressed the psychological outcomes of COVID-19 among students. If multiple studies from the same authors were found, only the most recent manuscript was included in the analysis to avoid duplicate data bias. If any data discrepancies were noted in the articles, corresponding authors were contacted for verification.

#### *2.6. Data Collection*

Full-text articles were obtained for all studies that initially met the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers (KB and RB) abstracted all studies for potential inclusion and quality using a customized data abstraction form, resulting in an interrater agreement of 81%. Inconsistencies between reviewers were adjudicated by a third independent

reviewer (MS). Information related to study authors, publication year, study location, gender distribution, number of subjects, type of survey tool with the cut-off criteria, and the proportion of subjects with positive psychological outcomes were collected in a spreadsheet. Data were reviewed twice to ensure accuracy. We also attempted to contact corresponding authors of the primary studies to verify the accuracy of data points (if needed).

**Figure 1.** Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram detailing all steps of screening with reasons for exclusion.
