1. AMSTAR tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

Criteria	Specific requirements (possible answers: yes, no, cannot answer, not applicable)
1. Was an 'a priori' design used?	The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. Note: need to refer to a protocol, ethics approval, or predetermined/a priori published research objectives to score a "yes."
2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?	There should be at least 2 independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. Note: 2 people do study selection, 2 people do data extraction, consensus process or 1 person checks the other person's work.
3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?	At least 2 electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase). Keywords or MeSH terms (or both) must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialised registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. Note: if at least 2 sources + 1 supplementary strategy used, select "yes"(Cochrane register/ CENTRAL counts as 2 sources; a grey literature search counts as supplementary).
4. Was the status of the publication (i.e. grey literature) used as inclusion criteria?	The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language, etc. Note: if review indicates that there was a search for "grey literature"or "unpublished literature,"indicate "yes."SIGLE database, dissertations, conference proceedings, and trial registries are all considered grey for this purpose. If searching a source that contains both grey and non‐grey, must specify that they were searching for grey/unpublished literature.
5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?	A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. Note: acceptable if the excluded studies were referenced. If there was an electronic link to the list but the link is no longer active, select "no."
6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?	In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions, and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analysed, e.g. age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. Note: acceptable if not in table format as long as they are described as above.
7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?	'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g. for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. Note: can include use of a quality scoring tool or checklist, e.g. Jadad scale, risk of bias, sensitivity analysis, etc., or a description of quality items, with some type of result for EACH study ("low"or "high"is acceptable, as long as it is clear which studies scored "low"and which scored "high;"a summary score/range for all studies is not acceptable).
8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?	The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations. Note: might say something such as "the results should be interpreted with caution due to poor quality of included studies."Cannot score "yes"for this question if scored "no"for question 7.
9. Were the methods used to combine findings of studies appropriate?	For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e. Chi2 test for homogeneity, I2 statistic). If heterogeneity exists, a random‐effects model should be used or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e. is it sensible to combine?), or both. Note: indicate "yes"if they mention or describe heterogeneity, i.e. if they explain that they cannot pool because of heterogeneity/variability between interventions.
10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?	An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g. funnel plot, other available tests) or statistical tests (e.g. Egger regression test), or both. Note: if no test values or funnel plot included, score "no."Score "yes"if they mention that publication bias could not be assessed because there were fewer than 10 included studies.
11. Was the conflict of interest stated?	Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies. Note: to get a "yes,"must indicate source of funding or support for the systematic review AND for each of the included studies.