Table 3 Results of the individual studies

Clements et al.,

2011 [24] ¹

CON: − 7.9 ± 4.5 (14.6%)*

PRO: − 7.7 ± 3.5 (14.7%)*

0.23 (− 0.48 to 0.95)

CON: − 8.0 ± 3.5 (14.3%)*

PRO: − 9.2 ± 3.2 (15.7%)*

CON: −15.7 ± 2.5 (13.8%)*

PRO: − 15.8 ± 2.6 (13.9%)*

CON: − 6.1 ± 1.1 (14%)*

PRO: − 5.9 ± 0.9 (13.8%)*

CON: − 294.1 ± 207.2 (15.9%)*

PRO: − 286.6 ± 271.1 (15.9%)*

Günes et al.,

2019 [25] ²

CON: − 7.2 (12%)*

PRO: 3.8 (8%)*^

0.31 (− 0.24 to 0.78)

CON: − 25.1 (41%)*

PRO: − 36.7 (49.5%)*

CON: − 33.0 (26.9%)*

PRO: − 33.1 (27.2%)*

CON: − 12.6 (27.4%)*

PRO: − 12.2 (26.5%)*

NA

Oppert et al.,

2018 [26] ³

CON: − 8.8 (− 10.1 to − 7.5)* (16%)

PRO: − 8.2 (− 9.3 to − 7.1)* (15%)

NA

CON: −19.7 (− 21.5 to − 17.9)*

PRO: − 19.8 (− 21.3 to − 18.2)*

CON: − 28 (− 30.6 to − 25.4)*

PRO: − 27.2 (− 29.4 to − 25.1)*

CON:-10.5 (−11.4 to − 9.6)*

PRO: − 10.2 (− 11.0 to − 9.4)*

NA

Schiavo et al.,

2017 [27] ¹

CON: − 14.5 (19%)*

PRO: − 8.8 (12%)*^

0.61 (0.07 to 1.15)

CON: −23.7 (50%)*

PRO: − 43.2 (84%)*^

CON: − 38.8 (31%)*

PRO: − 46.7 (36%)*

NA

CON: − 645.16 (29%)*^

PRO: − 380.18 (17%)*^

Schollenberger et al.,

2016 [28] ¹

CON: − 7.8 (11.3%)*

PRO: − 7.6 (11.7%)*

0.3 (− 0.59 to 1.18)

CON: −21.0 (30.8%)*

PRO: − 29.1 (37.2%)*

CON: −28.7 (20.9%)*

PRO: − 36.4 (25%)*

CON: −10.3 (21%)*

PRO: − 13.0 (25%)*

NA