Table 1.

Methodological quality assessment of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses

	Systematic review/ meta-analysis	Item 1	Item 2	Item 3	Item 4	Item 5	Item 6	Item 7	Item 8	Item 9	Item 10	Item 11	Total score
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis involved patients with ACS
1	Barth et al69	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	11
2	Devi et al44	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	10
3	Ghisi et al50	CA	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	7
4	Kotb et al59	CA	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
5	Brown et al37	Yes	No	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	7
6	Dickens et al45	CA	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
7	Aldcroft et al31	CA	No	Yes	CA	NO	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	6
8	Brown et al70	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	10
9	Huttunen-Lenz et al56	CA	No	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	5
10	Goulding et al51	Yes	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
11	Auer et al34	CA	Yes	Yes	CA	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	5
12	Barth et al36	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	10
13	Fernandez et al48	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	8
14	Barth et al35	CA	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	CA	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7
15	Clark et al41	CA	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis involved patients with T2DM
16	Choi et al40	CA	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
17	Creamer et al42	Yes	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
18	Huang et al55	CA	CA	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7
19	Chen et al39	CA	CA	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	7
20	Pillay et al71	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9
21	Terranova et al72	CA	CA	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
22	Attridge et al33	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	10
23	Odnoletkova et al66	Yes	CA	Yes	CA	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	6
24	Pal et al67	CA	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
25	Ricci-Cabello et al73	Yes	CA	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9
26	Saffari et al74	CA	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
27	Gucciardi et al52	CA	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	7
28	Pal et al68	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	10
29	van Vugt et al75	CA	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	No	Yes	6
30	Amaeshi32	CA	CA	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	No	No	4
31	Nam et al62	CA	CA	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
32	Steinsbekk et al76	CA	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	7
33	Burke et al38	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	10
34	Lun Gan et al57	Yes	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
35	Ramadas et al77	CA	CA	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	No	Yes	5
36	Hawthorne et al54	Yes	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	CA	Yes	8
37	Minet et al61	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	9
38	Alam et al30	Yes	Yes	No	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	8
39	Duke et al46	Yes	CA	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
40	Fan and Sidani47	Yes	No	Yes	CA	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	5
41	Hawthorne et al53	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	11
42	Khunti et al58	CA	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	5
43	Loveman et al60	Yes	CA	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	8
44	Wens et al78	CA	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	Yes	7
45	Nield et al63	Yes	Yes	Yes	CA	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	9
46	Zabaleta and Forbes79	CA	CA	Yes	CA	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	No	No	5
47	Deakin et al43	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	11
48	Vermeire et al80	Yes	Yes	Yes	CA	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	9
49	Gary et al49	CA	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	6
50	Norris et al65	CA	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	CA	No	No	4
51	Norris et al64	CA	Yes	Yes	CA	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	NA	No	No	5

Item 1: ‘Was an "a priori" design provided?’,Source:Shea et al²²; Item 2: ‘Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?’; Item 3: ‘Was a comprehensive literature search performed?’; Item 4: ‘Was the status of publication (ie, grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?’; Item 5: ‘Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?’; Item 6: ‘Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?’; Item 7: ‘Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?’; Item 8: ‘Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?’; Item 9: ‘Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?’; Item 10: ‘Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?’; Item 11: ‘Was the conflict of interest stated?’

CA, cannot answer; NA, not applicable.