The review question was clear and this was supported by detailed inclusion criteria, which appear to be reproducible. The search strategy included some relevant sources, but the restriction to published English-language articles means that important trials may have been missed and language and publication biases could not be ruled out. Appropriate items were used to assess the quality of the included trials, but the full results were not presented. The review process was conducted by the author, and (as acknowledged in the paper) the absence of attempts to minimise errors and bias was a potential threat to the reliability of the findings. The chosen method of synthesis was appropriate for the few trials. Not many characteristics of the included patients were reported, which limits the generalisability of the review findings. One of the included trials received industry sponsorship.
These potential methodological limitations, together with those acknowledged by the author, mean that the reliability of the conclusion is unclear.