Skip to main content
. 2023 Mar 10;120(10):155–161. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.m2023.0003

eTable 6. Quality assessment of review articles on analgesic use in sport.

Study (reference) 1. Was the review planned/defined a priori? 2. Were study selection and data extraction performed by two individuals independently? 3. Was a comprehensive and systematic literature search performed? 4. Were unpublished study data and gray literature included in the review? 5. Did the review provide a a list of the studies included and excluded? 6. Were the study characteristics (characteristics of patients, interventions, and endpoints) of the included studies reported either in table format or in detail in the text? 7. Was the risk of bias of the included primary studies assessed according to established methods? 8. Was the risk of bias of the included studies taken into account in the interpretation of the review findings? 9. Was the statistical analysis of the study results appropriate? 10. Was the potential for publication bias addressed? 11. Were conflicts of interest addressed?
Alaranta et al.(2008) (19) No No No Unclear No No No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Berrsche and Schmitt (2022) (e25) Yes No No Unclear No Unclear No Yes Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Brune et al. (2008) (21) No No No Unclear No Unclear No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Brune et al. (2009) (22) No No No Unclear No Unclear No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Brune et al. (2009) (23) No No No Unclear No Unclear No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Ciocca (2005) (25) Unclear No No Unclear No No No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Graf-Baumann (2013) (8) No No No Unclear No Unclear No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Harle et al. (2018) (31) Yes Yes Yes Unclear Yes Yes No Yes Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Holgado et al. (2018) (33) Yes No Yes Unclear No Yes No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Koes et al. (2018) (37) Unclear No Yes Unclear Unclear Yes No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Leyk and Rüther (2021) (12) Unclear No Yes Unclear Yes No No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Müller-Platz et al. (2011) (e2) No No No Unclear No Yes No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Niederberger and Geisslinger (2016) (e3) No No No Yes No No No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Seidel (2015) (e12) No No No Unclear No No No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Tscholl (2014) (e17) No No No Unclear No No No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Tscholl et al. (2015) (e18) No No No Unclear No Yes No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Warden (2009) (e22) No No No Unclear No No No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear
Warden (2010) (e23) No No No Unclear No Unclear No No Not applicable Not applicable Unclear

AMSTAR, a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (15)