The review question was clear and it was supported by replicable inclusion criteria for the interventions, outcomes, and population. The criteria for study design were less specific. Two relevant databases were searched, but there was no reported search of non-electronic sources and no attempts to locate unpublished studies, which means that relevant studies might have been missed. The process for study selection included attempts to minimise reviewer error and bias. No studies were found and a critical commentary of the remainder of the review process is not relevant. The authors recommendations for practice and research were vague and their usefulness is questionable.
The authors' conclusion reflects the findings of the review, but the limited search strategy means that the reliability of this conclusion is unclear.