Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment by AMSTAR-2 Tool

From: Diversity when interpreting evidence in network meta-analyses (NMAs) on similar topics: an example case of NMAs on diabetic macular oedema

Items

Korobelnik 2015 [13]

Re´gnier 2014 [14]

Zhang 2016 [15]

Muston 2018 [16]

Virgili 2018 [17]

Overall assessment

Critically low

Critically low

Critically low

Critically low

High

1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?

Yes/no

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

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/partial, yes/no

Partial yes

No

No

No

Partial yes

3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?

Yes/no

Yes

No

No

No

No

4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?

Yes/partial, yes/no

Yes

No

Partial yes

Partial yes

Partial yes

5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?

Yes/no

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?

Yes/no

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?

Yes/partial, yes/no

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?

Yes/partial, yes/no

Partial yes

Partial yes

Partial yes

Partial yes

Partial 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/partial, yes/no/includes only NRSI/includes only RCTs

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

No

Yes

10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?

Yes/no

No

No

No

No

Yes

11. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?

Yes/no/no meta-analysis conducted

No

No

No

No

Yes

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?

Yes/no/no meta-analysis

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?

Yes/no

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?

Yes/no

No

No

No

No

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?

Yes/no/no meta-analysis conducted

No

No

No

No

Yes

16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?

Yes/no

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

  1. AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews; critical domains in bold italics; rating overall confidence in the results of the review: High (no or one non-critical weakness: the systematic review provides an accurate and comprehensive summary of the results of the available studies that address the question of interest); moderate (more than one non-critical weakness: the systematic review has more than one weakness but no critical flaws. It may provide an accurate summary of the results of the available studies that were included in the review; multiple non-critical weaknesses may diminish confidence in the review, and it may be appropriate to move the overall appraisal down from moderate to low confidence.); low (one critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses: the review has a critical flaw and may not provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the available studies that address the question of interest); critically low (more than one critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses: the review has more than one critical flaw and should not be relied on to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the available studies)