Table 5 Evaluation of systematic reviews with AMSTAR-2.
Arbildo-Vega et al. (2020)51 | Cidreira Boaro et al. (2019)52 | Veloso et al. (2019)50 | |
|---|---|---|---|
1. In the research questions and inclusion criteria, PICO components were included | Yes | Yes | Yes |
2. Before commencement of review, protocol was registered, and any crucial deviations were justified (CRITICAL) | No | No | Yes |
3. The study design selection for inclusion was explained by review authors | No | No | No |
4. Literature search strategy used by review authors was comprehensive (CRITICAL) | Partial yes | Partial yes | Partial yes |
5. The study selection was performed in duplicate | Yes | Yes | Yes |
6. The extraction of data was performed in duplicate | Yes | No | Yes |
7. The excluded studies were listed, and its rationale was provided (CRITICAL) | Yes | No | Yes |
8. The involved studies were described in adequate detail | Yes | No | Yes |
9. In individual studies involved in the review, the risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using a satisfactory technique (CRITICAL) | Partial yes | Partial yes | Partial yes |
10. Funding sources for included studies was reported | No | No | No |
11. Appropriate methods were used for the meta-analysis performed (CRITICAL) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
12. On the outcome of meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis, the possible impact of RoB was assessed in individual studies | No | No | No |
13. When explaining the outcome of the review, RoB was considered for individual studies (CRITICAL) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
14. Any variability noticed in the outcome of the review was satisfactorily explained and discussed | Yes | Yes | Yes |
15. Publication bias was adequately investigated and its impact on the results was discussed in quantitative synthesis (CRITICAL) | No | No | Yes |
16. For conducting the review, any funding was received or potential sources of conflict of interest was reported | Yes | Yes | Yes |
