Table 2 COSMIN [23] study quality appraisals

Lamb et al. [8]

MDT-MODe

Adequate

Very Good

N/A

N/A

N/A

Adequate

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Lamb et al. [24]

MDT-MODe

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Adequate

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Shah et al. [25]

MDT-MODe

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Adequate

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Gandamihardja et al. [26]

MDT-MODe

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Very Good

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Jalil et al. [27]

MDT-MODe

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Adequate

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Soukup et al. [17]

MDT-MODe

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Adequate

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Soukup et al. [28]

MDT-MODe

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Adequate

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Soukup et al. [29]

MDT-MODe

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Adequate

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Hahlweg et al. al [30].

MDT-MODe

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Very good

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Lumenta et al. [31]

MDT-MODe

N/A

Doubtful

N/A

N/A

N/A

Very good

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Lamb et al. [9]

MODe-Lite

Very Good

Very Good

N/A

Very Good

N/A

Very Good

N/A

Very Good

N/A

N/A

Taylor et al. [10]

MDT-OARS

Adequate

Doubtful

N/A

Doubtful

N/A

Adequate

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Harris et al. [11]

MDT-MOT

Very Good

Very Good

N/A

N/A

N/A

Very Good

N/A

Very Good

N/A

N/A

Taylor et al. [12]

TEAM

Adequate

Very Good

N/A

Very Good

N/A

Adequate

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Jalil et al. [13]

ATLAS

Very Good

Very Good

N/A

Very Good

N/A

Very Good

N/A

N/A

Very Good

N/A

Wihl et al. [32]

ATLAS

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Adequate

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Lamb et al. [14]

MDT-QuIC

Adequate

Very Good

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A