Skip to main content
. 2023 May 4:1–32. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s11266-023-00573-z

Table 1.

Quality of the included reviews, as rated using the AMSTAR 2

Study Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16
Anderson et al. (2014) Y N Y N N N N Y N N N/A N/A N Y N/A N
Blais et al. (2017) Y N N N N N N Y N N N/A N/A N N N/A N
Cattan et al. (2011) Y N N N N Y N N N N N/A N/A N Y N/A Y
Chen et al. (2020) Y N N PY Y Y Y Y Y N N/A N/A N Y N/A Y
Conway et al. (2009) Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N
Farrell & Bryant (2009) N N N PY N N N Y N N N/A N/A N Y N/A N
Filges et al. (2020) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y
Galbraith et al. (2015) Y N Y N Y N N Y N N N/A N/A N N N/A N
Giraudeau & Bailly (2019 N N Y Y Y N N Y N N N/A N/A N Y N/A N
Goethem et al., (2014) Y N Y Y N Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N
Gualano et al. (2018) Y N Y N Y Y N PY Y N N/A N/A Y Y N/A Y
Höing et al. (2016) Y N N PY N N N Y N N N/A N/A N Y N/A Y
Howard & Serviss (2022) Y N N PY Y N N N N N N N N N Y N
Hui et al. (2020) Y N N N N Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N
Hyde et al., (2014) Y N N N Y Y N Y N N N/A N/A N Y N/A Y
Jenkinson et al., 2013 Y Y Y PY Y Y N Y Y N N/A N/A Y Y N/A Y
Kragt & Holtrop (2019) N N Y PY N N N N N N N/A N/A N Y N/A N
Lovell et al. (2015) Y Y Y N Y N N Y N N N/A N/A N N N/A Y
Manjunath & Manoj (2021) Y N N N N N N N PY N N/A N/A Y N N/A Y
Marco-Gardoqui et al. (2020) Y N Y PY Y Y N Y N N N/A N/A N Y N/A Y
Milbourn et al. (2018) Y N N N N N N PY PY N N/A N/A Y N N/A Y
O’Flynn et al. (2021) Y N N Y N N N N N N N/A N/A N Y N/A N
Okun et al. (2013) Y N N N N Y N PY N N Y N N Y Y N
Onyx & Warburton (2003) N N N N N N N N N N N/A N/A N Y N/A N
Owen et al., (2022) Y Y N N Y N N Y PY N N/A N/A Y Y N/A Y
Bonsdorff & Rantanen (2011) Y N N N N N N Y N N N/A N/A N Y N/A N
Wheeler et al (1998) N N N PY N N N Y N N N N N Y Y N
Willems et al. (2020) Y N N N Y Y N Y PY N N/A N/A N Y N/A Y

Q1: Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?

Q2: 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 protocolreview?

Q4: Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy

Q5: Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?

Q6: Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?

Q7: Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?

Q8: Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?

Q9: Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies that were included in the review?

Q10: Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?

Q11: If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?

Q12: 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?

Q13: Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?

Q14: Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?

Q15: f 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?

Q16: Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure