Table 6.

Assessment of methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines^90,91

Criteria	Reviews: Author (year)
	Ainsworth (2007)32	Sieda (2010)81	Ryosa (2016)45	Jeanfavre (2017)
1. Was there ‘a priori’ design provided?	✔	✔	✔	✔
2. Was there duplicate studies selection and data extraction?	?	✔	✔	✔
3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?	✔	✔	✔	✔
4. Was a status publication (i.e. gray literature) used as an inclusion criteria?	✗	✗	✗	✗
5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?	✗	✔	✗	✔
6. With the characteristics of the included studies provided?	✔	✔	✔	✔
7. With a scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?	✔	✔	✔	✔
8. Was a scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?	✔	✔	✔	✔
9. Was the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?	NA	✔	✔	✔
10. Was a likelihood of publication bias assessed?	✗	✔	✔	✗
11. Was a conflict of interest included?	✗	✔	✔	✔
Total score:	5/11	10/11	9/11	9/11
Quality Rating: (good, fair, or poor)	Fair	Good	Good	Good

NA, not applicable; ✔: yes; ✗: no; ?: cannot determine or not reported