Table 11 Risk of bias of meta-analyses: AMSTAR items 7, 10, 16
Domain | Linde (1997) [6] | Linde (1998) [7] | Cucherat (2000) [8] | Shang (2005) [9] | Mathie (2014) [10] | Mathie (2017) [11] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0: No, 1: Partial Yes (provided a list of all potentially relevant studies that were read in full-text form but excluded from the review). 2 = Yes (1 + justified the exclusion from the review of each potentially relevant study) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0: No. 1: Yes, they reported on the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review OR the reviewers looked for this information but it was not reported by study authors | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 0: No. 1: The authors reported no competing interests. 2: The authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 |