Table 5 AMSTAR2 checklist for systematic review appraisal
Criteria | Systematic Reviews | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Haas et al. 2018 [78] | Anter et al. 2016 [73] | Walter et al. 2016 [70] | Nikolic-Jakoba et al. 2016 [6] | Choi et al. 2018 [80] | Woelber et al. 2018 [83] | |
1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 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 | Yes | Partial yes | Yes | Partial yes | Yes |
3. Did the review authors explain their reasons for selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No “Some failed to continue” | Yes |
4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Partial yes | Partial yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial yes | Partial yes | Yes |
8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? | Yes | Partial yes | Partial yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies included in the review? | Yes | Partial yes | No | Yes | No | No |
10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | No | No | No | No | No | No |
11. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for a statistical combination of results? | Yes | No meta-analysis conducted | No meta-analysis | No meta-analysis conduct-ed | No meta-analysis | No meta-analysis performed |
12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB on individual studies based on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? | No | No meta-analysis conducted | No meta-analysis | No meta-analysis conducted | No meta-analysis performed | No meta-analysis performed |
13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? | Yes | Yes | Noa “No RoB assessed” | Yes | No | No |
14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 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? | No | No meta-analy-sis cond-ucted | No meta-analysis conduct-ed | No meta-analysis conduc-ted | No meta-analysis performed | No meta-analysis perform-ed |
16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes |