Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of the AMSTAR 2 quality assessment

From: Case report: a rapid review approach used by the UK National Screening Committee to inform recommendations on general population screening for vasa praevia

QuestionAssessment
1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?Yes
2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?Yes
3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?Yes
4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?Yes
5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?No
6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?No
7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?Yes
8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?Yes
9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?Yes
10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?No
11. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?Not applicable
12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?Not applicable
13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the reviewYes
14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?Yes
15. If they performed quantitative synthesis, did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?Not applicable
16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?Partially*
  1. *Not explicitly reported in the online version of the report, but subsequently reported in the detailed methodology and results manuscript currently under review