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.