Appendix 5.
Methodological quality of included systematic reviews on acupuncture and related therapies for irritable bowel syndrome.
| First author | AMSTAR item |
||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
| Manheimer and colleagues1 | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| Suen and Zhong2 | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N |
| Hussain and Quigley3 | N | NR | N | N | N | N | N | N | N/A | N | Y |
| Park and colleagues4 | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Schneider and colleagues5 | N | NR | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N/A | N | N |
| Zhao and colleagues6 | N | NR | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Pei and colleagues7 | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Lim and colleagues8 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| Chao and Zhang9 | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Chey and colleagues10 | N | NR | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | N/A | N | Y |
| Grundmann and Yoon11 | N | NR | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | N/A | N | N |
| Li and colleagues12 | N | NR | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Liu and Chen13 | N | NR | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| Deng and colleagues14 | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Xu and colleagues15 | N | NR | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| # of yes (%) | 1 (6.67) | 6 (40.0) | 13 (86.7) | 1 (6.67) | 2 (13.3) | 12 (80.0) | 13 (86.7) | 12 (80.0) | 11 (73.3) | 4 (26.7) | 6 (40.0) |
# of yes, number of yes; N/A, not applicable; N, no; NR, not reported; SR, systematic review; Y, yes (SR fulfilling the criteria);
AMSTAR item: (1). Was an ‘a priori’ design provided? (2). Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? (3). Was a comprehensive literature search performed? (4). Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? (5). Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? (6). Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? (7). Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? (8). Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? (9). Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? (10). Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? (11). Was the conflict of interest included?