Statistical analysis:
The proposed meta-analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration). For dichotomous outcomes, we retrieved relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Mean values and standard deviations were provided for continuous outcomes. Based on a random-effects model and the generic-inverse variance and continuous outcome functions, this meta-analysis presents a pooled effect of relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs). All results with p-values lower than 0.05 were considered significant. We visualised funnel plots for each outcome to gauge the extent of publication bias.
Heterogeneity between trials was assessed and reported as a percentage using the I2 statistic. The I2 value of 25% indicated low heterogeneity, the range of 25% to 50% indicated moderate heterogeneity, and the range of 50% and above indicated high heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the contribution of each study to the overall pooled estimate, which was performed because of the high degree of heterogeneity in the study results.