The inclusion criteria were not clearly stated (with the exception of study design) and had to be inferred from the review question; this can increase the risk of errors and bias in the selection of studies for the review. Only one database was searched, which increased the chances that relevant studies were omitted from the review. It appeared that several relevant RCTs were in progress at the time of the review, therefore the reviews' conclusions may have been superseded. The authors did not report using methods designed to reduce reviewer bias and error at any stage of the review process.
A quality assessment of included trials was not reported. No details of the methods used in the statistical synthesis of the included trials were reported, which made it difficult to determine their appropriateness of the authors' approach. There was no attempt to assess or explore heterogeneity between trials.
Whilst the authors' conclusions reflected the result of the review, the poor reporting and shortcomings of the review process mean that it is difficult to determine their reliability.