Table 2 Results of AMSTAR assessment
From: Overview of systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges: methodologies and recommendations for practice
Pryblyski 2015 | Konidari 2014 | Moreu 2014 | Sparshatt 2009 | Knight 2008 | Osterman 2006 | Cooney 2016 | Sparshatt 2010 | Zuk 2009 | Bishara 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Was an a priori design (protocol) provided? | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
Was a comprehensive literature search performed? | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as a criterion? | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ |
Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ |
Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed? | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Was the scientific quality of the studies used in formulating conclusions? | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Were the methods used to combine the findings of the studies appropriate?a | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ |
Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?b | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ | ✗ | N/A | N/A | ✗ |
Was a conflict of interest included? | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |