Study | Item 1 | Item 2 | Item 3 | Item 4 | Item 5 | Item 6 | Item 7 | Item 8 | Item 9 | Item 10 | Item 11 | Item 12 | Item 13 | Item 14 | Item 15 | Item 16 | Overall rating |
|---|
Gazzato et al. [3] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Medium |
Yue et al. [25] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Medium |
Fuke et al. [26] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | High |
Rosa et al.[27] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | High |
Ng et al. [28] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Medium |
Erbay Dalli et al. [29] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Medium |
Brooke et al. [30] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | High |
DeForge et al. [31] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | Medium |
Bibas et al. [32] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | High |
- AMSTAR 2 (128) used sixteen items to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews on the basis of the validity of review design, literature screening, data extraction, and individual study quality assessment. Among these items, AMSTAR 2 designated seven “critical domains” that can critically affect the validity of a review (e.g., items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15). Meta-analyses were considered as high quality if they met all “critical domains” with other items satisfied ≥ 8, and other meta-analyses that met all “critical domains” were considered as medium quality. Besides, meta-analyses with one unsatisfied critical domain were assigned to low quality, and meta-analyses with more than one unsatisfied critical domain were considered as critically low quality. The items are as follows:
- Item 1: Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?
- Item 2: Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?
- Item 3: Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?
- Item 4: Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?
- Item 5: Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
- Item 6: Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?
- Item 7: Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?
- Item 8: Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?
- Item 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?
- Item 10: Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?
- Item 11: If meta-analysis was justified, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?
- Item 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?
- Item 13: Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?
- Item 14: Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?
- Item 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?
- Item 16: Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?
