The review question was clear, and inclusion criteria were adequately specified to allow replication. A range of relevant data sources were searched and attempts were made to retrieve published and unpublished studies; language bias was a possibility. The authors did not report whether steps were taken to minimise error and bias in the review process.
Quality assessment of the included studies was not mentioned, but the impact of this may be minimal as the included studies were all case reports, generally considered to be less robust study designs. The authors acknowledged reporting bias within case reports as one of several potential limitations of the review.
Although the results reflect the limited evidence presented, the reliability of the review methods is unclear.