Table 4. AMSTAR checklist of articles that met the criteria for the systematic review.
AMSTAR: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews; PICO: population, intervention, control, and outcomes
| AMSTAR criteria | Chen et al. [11] | Sardi et al. [12] | Yu and Chan [13] |
| Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? | Yes | No | No |
| Was a “priori” design implemented? | Yes | Yes | No |
| Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | Yes | Yes | Uncertain |
| Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | Yes | Uncertain | Uncertain |
| Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | No | No | No |
| Did the review authors describe the studies included in adequate detail? | Yes | Yes | No |
| Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies that were included in the review? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| If a meta-analysis was performed, did the authors use appropriate methods to statistically combine results? | Yes | No | Yes |
| If a meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of risk of bias in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? | Yes | No | Yes |
| Did the review authors account for risk of bias in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for and discussion of any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| If they performed quantitative synthesis, did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its impact on the results of the review? | No | No | Yes |
| Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Total score (out of 16) | 14/16 | 10/16 | 10/16 |
| Overall methodological quality | Accepted 87.5% | Accepted 62.5% | Accepted 62.5% |