From: Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies
AMSTAR-2 item | No N(%) | Probably Yes N(%) | Yes N(%) | Not Applicable N(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? | 48(25.9) | 0(0) | 137(74.1) | 0(0) |
2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review? | 39(21.1) | 78(42.2) | 68(36.8) | 0(0) |
3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? | 185(100) | 0(0) | 0(0) | 0(0) |
4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | 9(4.9) | 156(84.4) | 20(10.8) | 0(0) |
5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | 53(28.7) | 0(0) | 132(71.4) | 0(0) |
6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | 104(56.2) | 0(0) | 81(43.8) | 0(0) |
7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | 112(60.5) | 3(1.6) | 70(37.8) | 0(0) |
8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? | 8(4.3) | 54(29.2) | 123(66.5) | 0(0) |
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? | 73(39.5) | 73(39.5) | 39(21.1) | 0(0) |
10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | 165(89.2) | 0(0) | 20(10.8) | 0(0) |
11. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? | 10(5.4) | 0(0) | 75(40.5) | 100(54.1) |
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? | 32(17.3) | 0(0) | 53(28.7) | 100(54.1) |
13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? | 102(55.1) | 0(0) | 83(44.9) | 0(0) |
14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for. and discussion of. any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | 67(36.2) | 0(0) | 118(63.8) | 0(0) |
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? | 67(36.2) | 0(0) | 18(9.7) | 100(54.1) |
16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest. including any funding they received for conducting the review? | 68(36.8) | 0(0) | 117(63.2) | 0(0) |