Table 2. Methodological quality of systematic reviews based on AMSTAR criteria1,2.
| Authors (Year) | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pal et al (2013) [30] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 11 |
| de Jongh (2012) [23] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 9 |
| Free et al (2013) [24] | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 9 |
| Liang et al (2011) [29] | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 7 |
| Sutcliffe et al (2011) [33] | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 7 |
| Tao and Or (2013) [34] | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 7 |
| Saffari et al (2014) [32] | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | 6 |
| Russell-Minda et al (2009) [31] | N | CA | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 5 |
| Cole-Lewis & Kershaw (2010) [22] | N | CA | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | 4 |
| Baron et al (2012) [20] | N | N | CA | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | 3 |
| Holtz and Lauckner (2012) [26] | N | CA | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | 2 |
| Krishna and Boren (2008) [27] | N | CA | N | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | 2 |
| Buhi et al (2013) [21] | N | CA | CA | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | 1 |
| Herbert et al (2013) [25] | N | CA | CA | CA | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | 1 |
| Krishna et al (2009) [28] | N | CA | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | 1 |
| % of SRs meeting each criterion | 20% | 47% | 67% | 20% | 20% | 100% | 67% | 53% | 67% | 33% | 7% | μ = 5 |
1Q1: A priori design; Q2: Duplicate study selection and data extraction; Q3: Search comprehensiveness; Q4: Inclusion of grey literature (e.g. non-English articles, and conference proceedings); Q5: Included and excluded studies provided; Q6: Characteristics of the included studies provided; Q7: Scientific quality of the primary studies assessed and documented; Q8: Scientific quality of included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions; Q9: Appropriateness of methods used to combine studies’ findings; Q10: Likelihood of publication bias was assessed; Q11: Conflict of interest–potential sources of support were clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.
2 “Y” (Yes): Criterion met; “N” (No): Criterion not met; CA: Cannot answer; We awarded one point to each item that scored “yes” and summed these to calculate a total score for each review.