Table 2.

Methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews using the AMSTAR rating

	AMSTAR items
Author (Year)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11*	Overall rating
Azevedo et al. (2016)[43]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
Bautista-Castano et al. (2004)[44]	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	N/A	No	No	2
Carson et al. (2016)[33]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	6
Cliff et al. (2016)[34]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9
Costigan et al. (2013)[35]	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N/A	No	Yes	5
DeMattia et al. (2007)[45]	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	6
Fletcher et al. (2015)[36]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N/A	No	Yes	6
Froberg & Raustorp (2014)[37]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	N/A	No	Yes	5
Gorely et al. (2004)[38]	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	N/A	No	No	2
Leech et al. (2014)[39]	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	N/A	No	Yes	3
Leung et al. (2012)[46]	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	N/A	No	Yes	3
Liao et al. (2014)[47]	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7
Luckner et al. (2012)[48]	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	5
Marshall et al. (2004)[9]	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	3
Mistry & Puthussery (2015)[25]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	7
Mitchell & Byun (2014)[40]	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	N/A	No	Yes	2
Must & Tybor (2005)[28]	No	No	C/A	No	No	Yes	No	No	N/A	No	No	0
Pate et al. (2013)[29]	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	N/A	No	Yes	3
Prentice-Dunn & Prentice-Dunn (2012)[26]	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	N/A	No	No	2
Ramsey Buchanan et al. (2016)[49]	C/A	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
Rey-Lopez et al. (2008)[41]	No	No	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	N/A	No	Yes	2
Saunders et al. (2016)[14]	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	C/A	No	Yes	6
Stice et al.(2006)[50]	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	5
Stierlin et al. (2015)[30]	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	N/A	No	Yes	6
Tanaka et al. (2014)[31]	No	No	C/A	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	N/A	No	Yes	5
Van Ekris et al. (2016)[32]	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	5
Wahi et al. (2011)[51]	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
Wu et al. (2016)[52]	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	6
Zhang et al. (2016)[27]	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	5

*Criterion modified to only assess conflict of interest/source of funding statement of the review

AMSTAR contains 11-items to appraise the methodological aspects of the systematic reviews. All 11-items were scored as “Yes”, “No”, “Can’t Answer” or “Not Applicable”. AMSTAR comprises the following items:

1. ‘a priori’ design provided;

2. duplicate study selection/data extraction;

3. comprehensive literature search;

4. status of publication as inclusion criteria (i.e., grey or unpublished literature);

5. list of studies included/excluded provided;

6. characteristics of included studies documented;

7. scientific quality assessed and documented;

8. appropriate formulation of conclusions (based on methodological rigor and scientific quality of the studies);

9. appropriate methods of combining studies (homogeneity test, effect model used and sensitivity analysis);

10. assessment of publication bias (graphic and/or statistical test); and

11. conflict of interest statement