Table 1. Critical appraisal of the review by Wang et al. (2022).

AMSTAR-2 items	Criteria/Methods
1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?	Yes − Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adult participants with GTPS were included. Corticosteroid injection had to be one of the intervention groups in these trials, while the other interventions could be any conservative treatment for GTPS. Studies that included patients who had hip surgery, infection, acute trauma or Rheumatoid Arthritis were excluded. Screening, data extraction and assessment of bias was carried out by two reviewers independently.
2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?	Yes − This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO prior to commencement and no deviations from the original post were undertaken.
3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?	No − There was no justification why only random controlled trials were included.
4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?	Yes partially − A multi-database search was undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library from date of inception until 30th April 2021. However, there was no searching of trial registries.
5. Did the review authors perform the study selection in duplicate?	Yes − Two reviewers carried out study selection independently.
6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?	Yes − Data extraction was carried out by two reviewers independently
7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?	No − A comprehensive list of excluded studies was not provided.
8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate details?	Yes − All key variables were given regarding studies which were included in the review.
9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias in the individual studies that were included in the review?	Yes − Visual inspection of funnel plot was proposed, however a middle threshold of 10 studies were set which was not achieved.
10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?	No − The systematic review did not indicate the funding sources of included studies.
11. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?	Yes − This meta-analysis employed both ‘fixed’ and ‘random’ methods of synthesis. The data was analysed utilising RevMan 5.4.1 software. Chi-Square test (Q test) and I2 were used to evaluate the statistical heterogenicity of the pooled data. An I2 value of >50% indicated that a random–effects model was employed, random. <%50 heterogenicity called for the use of a fixed-effect model being adopted.
12. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?	Yes − The systematic review proposed to do this, but unfortunately, they had less than 10 studies.
13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?	No − The risk of bias was assessed however it was not used in any type of subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis to identify its effect regards to the estimates presented.
14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?	Yes − Within the discussion they acknowledge that due to the potential risk of bias there is notable uncertainty in the estimates presented.
15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?	Yes − They were unable to carry out a funnel plot assessment, there being less than 10 studies. However, they did carry out a sensitivity analysis of the take one away of the small study, which had a notable effect of the review’s findings.
16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?	Yes − There is a clear indication of funding for the systematic review.