Table 3.
Methodological quality of included systematic reviews.
| First author and year | AMSTAR2 item | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2∗ | 3 | 4∗ | 5 | 6 | 7∗ | 8 | 9∗ | 10 | 11∗ | 12 | 13∗ | 14 | 15∗ | 16 | |
| Li et al., 2018 [18] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | N | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N |
| Liu et al, 2017 [19] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | N | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N |
| Zhang et al., 2017 [9] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | N | PY | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Qu and Liu, 2016 [20] | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Lin and Lim, 2017 [21] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N |
| Zhao et al., 2009 [22] | Y | N | Y | PY | N | N | N | PY | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N |
| Chen, 2015 [23] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Huang, 2013 [24] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Li et al., 2013 [25] | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Wang, 2016 [26] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N |
| Xiao et al., 2009 [27] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Xie et al., 2018 [8] | Y | N | Y | PY | N | N | N | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Liang, 2015 [28] | Y | N | Y | PY | N | N | Y | PY | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Liang et al., 2015 [29] | Y | N | Y | PY | N | N | Y | PY | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Chen et al., 2016 [30] | Y | N | Y | PY | N | N | Y | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Zeng, 2017 [31] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Liu et al., 2016 [32] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | N | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Zhang, 2012 [33] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | Y | N | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Fu et al., 2019 [10] | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Zhou et al., 2016 [34] | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Percentage of Y | 100 | 10 | 100 | 10 | 70 | 70 | 60 | 0 | 85 | 10 | 100 | 95 | 95 | 80 | 70 | 10 |
∗Critical items; Y: yes; N: no. PY: partial yes; Item 1: Did the research question and inclusion criteria include PICO? Item 2: Was there a prepublished plan? Were there significant biases in research and protocols? Item 3: Did the author explain the type of study design included? Item 4: Was a comprehensive literature search strategy used?. Item 5: Were repeated research screenings performed? Item 6: Was there duplicate data extraction? Item 7: Was there a list of excluded studies with reasons for exclusion given? Item 8: Was there a list of included studies with reasons for inclusion given? Item 9: Were appropriate tools used to assess the risk of bias for each included study? Item 10: Were the sources of funding disclosed in the study report? Item 11: If a meta-analysis was performed, were the results statistically combined using appropriate methods? Item 12: If a meta-analysis was performed, was the effect of the risk of bias explained in the results? Item 13: If a meta-analysis was performed, was the effect of the risk of bias explained in the discussion? Item 14: Was heterogeneity properly explained in the discussion? Item 15: If quantitative analysis was performed, were publication biases adequately investigated and their possible impacts discussed? Item 16: Were any potential sources of conflicts of interest disclosed?