Table 11.
Methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews by AMSTAR 2.
| Mao (2011) | Liu (2011) | Xiao (2011) | Cao (2013) | Hu (2014) | Mai (2015) | Min (2016) | Shuai (2016) | Wang (2017) | Li (2018) | Kim (2019) | “Yes” (n (%)) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 11 (100.00) |
| Item 2 | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | 0 (0) |
| Item 3 | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | 0 (0) |
| Item 4 | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | PY | Y | Y | PY | Y | PY | 7 (63.64) |
| Item 5 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | 8 (72.73) |
| Item 6 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | 8 (72.73) |
| Item 7 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | 9 (81.82) |
| Item 8 | PY | PY | Y | Y | PY | PY | Y | Y | PY | PY | Y | 5 (45.45) |
| Item 9 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | 9 (81.82) |
| Item 10 | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | 0 (0) |
| Item 11 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 (90.91) |
| Item 12 | Y | N | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | 4 (36.36) |
| Item 13 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | 10 (90.91) |
| Item 14 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | Y | 7 (63.64) |
| Item 15 | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | 6 (54.55) |
| Item 16 | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | 5 (45.45) |
| “Yes”(n (%)) | 10 (62.50) | 6 (37.50) | 9 (56.25) | 10 (62.50) | 11 (68.75) | 8 (50.00) | 11 (68.75) | 12 (75.00) | 3 (18.75) | 9 (56.25) | 10 (62.50) | |
| Ranking of quality | Very low level | Very low level | Very low level | Very low level | Low level | Very low level | Very low level | Low level | Very low level | Low level | Very low level |
Y: yes; PY: partial yes; and N: no.