Table 2.
Methodological quality of included systematic reviews using “A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews” (AMSTAR) and AMSTAR +
| References | Item 1 | Item 2 | Item 3 | Item 4 | Item 5 | Item 6 | Item 7 | Item 8 | Item 9 | Item 10 | Item 11 | TOTAL AMSTAR | Item 1 | Item 2 | Item 3 | Item 4 | Item 5 | Item 6 | TOTAL AMSTAR + |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brandl et al. [23] | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8/11 | N/A | N | Y | N | Y | N | 2/7 |
| Rometsch-Ogioun et al. [24] | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8/11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Y | N | 1/7 |
| Patel and Chrisinger [25] | Y | N/A | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9/11 | Y | N | N | N | N | N | 2/7 |
| You et al. [26] | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10/11 | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | 3/7 |
| Ma et al. [27] | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10/11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0/7 |
| Battison et al. [28] | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | 7/11 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 0/7 |
| Stubbs et al. [29] | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10/11 | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | 2/7 |
| Stubbs et al. [22] | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10/11 | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | 2/7 |
Y = yes; N = No; N/A = not applicable.
Detailed items of the AMSTAR:
1 - Was an ‘a priori’ design provided?
2 - Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?
3 - Was a comprehensive literature search performed?
4 - Was the status of publication (that is gray literature) used as an inclusion criterion?
5 - Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?
6 - Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?
7 - Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?
8 - Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?
9 - Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?
10 - Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?
11 - Was the conflict of interest stated?
Detailed items of the AMSTAR +:
1 - Was the majority of all meta-analysed studies double-blind? Was not assessed as not possible to realize in physical activity interventions (2 points)
2 - Was the total number of participants in the meta-analysis sufficiently large?
3 - Was the meta-analytically derived primary outcome result confirmed in at least one large study with approximately 100 patients per arm?
4 - Were studies with observed cases analyses included in the meta-analysis?
5 - Was the primary outcome result heterogeneous?
6 - Was there significant publication bias regarding the primary outcome result?