The review addressed a clear question supported by broad but reproducible inclusion criteria. The search was limited both in terms of the sources searched and the restriction to studies published in English. It was not reported whether methods were used to reduce error and bias during the review process.
Although some study limitations were highlighted, a systematic assessment of study quality was not undertaken, so the risk of bias was unclear. With the level of clinical heterogeneity across the studies, the use of a narrative synthesis was appropriate. A more detailed description of the interventions would have been helpful to the reader. Ten of the sixteen studies had a follow-up of six months or less.
Given the limitations of the review and available evidence, the conclusion seems overly strong.