Table 2 Methodological quality of the 202 included systematic reviews accessed by AMSTAR
Item | Number of “Yes” (%) |
|---|---|
1. Was an ‘a priori’ design provided? | 6 (3.0%) |
2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? | 55 (27.2%) |
3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? | 140 (69.3%) |
4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? | 43 (21.3%) |
5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? | 15 (7.4%) |
6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? | 168 (83.2%) |
7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? | 103 (51.0%) |
8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? | 45 (22.3%) |
9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? | 104 (51.5%) |
10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? | 16 (7.9%) |
11. Was the conflict of interest included? | 0 (0.0%) |
Overall | |
Median of the number of “Yes” per study (Inter- quartile range) | 3 (2–5) |
Percentage of Poor Quality SR (less than 5 “Yes”) | 139 (68.8%) |
Percentage of Moderate Quality SR (5 to 8 “Yes”) | 61 (30.2%) |
Percentage of High Quality SR (9 to 11 “Yes”) | 2 (1.0%) |