Table 2.
The AMSTAR‐2 assessment.
| SRs | Item | Overall | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2a | 3 | 4a | 5 | 6 | 7a | 8 | 9a | 10 | 11a | 12 | 13a | 14 | 15a | 16 | quality | |
| Pollock et al. 17 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NMC | NMC | Y | Y | NMC | Y | High |
| Yue et al. 18 | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | N | PY | PY | N | NMC | NMC | N | Y | NMC | Y |
Critically low |
| Cénat et al. 19 | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | N | PY | N | Y | NMC | NMC | N | Y | NMC | Y |
Critically low |
Notes: Item 1, “Did the research questions and inclusion criteria include components of the clinical question (patients, intervention, comparison, and outcome)?”; Item 2, “Did the report contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the review being conducted and justify any significant protocol deviations?”; Item 3, “Did the authors explain their selection of the studies for inclusion?”; Item 4, “Did they use a comprehensive literature search strategy?”; Item 5, “Did they perform study selection in duplicate?”; Item 6, “Did they perform data extraction in duplicate?”; Item 7, “Did they provide a list of excluded studies and justify them?”; Item 8, “Were the included studies described in adequate detail?”; Item 9, “Was a satisfactory technique used to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in the individual included studies?”; Item 10, “Did they report the sources of funding for the studies included?”; Item 11, “If a meta‐analysis was performed, did they use appropriate methods for statistical combination of the results?”; Item 12, “If a meta‐analysis was performed, did they assess the potential impact of the RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta‐analysis or other evidence synthesis?”; Item 13, “Did they account for the RoB in individual studies during the interpretation/discussion of the results?”; Item 14, “Did they provide a satisfactory explanation for and discussion of any heterogeneity in the results?”; Item 15, “If they performed quantitative synthesis, was an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) conducted and its likely impact on the results discussed?”; Item 16 “Did they report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?”
Abbreviations: N, no; NMC, no meta‐analysis conducted; PY, partial yes; Y, yes.
Critical domains.