. 2020 Jun 1;54(2):92–100.

Table 4.

Quality appraisal and summary of the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (n = 9)

Author (Country)	PRISMA score	Heterogeneity	Risk of bias	Quality assessment instrument	Comments	Included meta-analysis of the SR
Rangel-Rinc&n et al. 2018 ¹⁸(Colombia)	N/A (umbrella review of SRs)	N/A (umbrella review of SRs)	N/A (umbrella review of SRs)	N/A (umbrella review of SRs)	Very thorough umbrella review	No (umbrella review)
Iheozor-Ejiofor et al. 2017 ¹⁴ (Cochrane Review)	25/27	High	High	Cochrane's risk of bias tool	15 RCTs (7161 participants) NSPT/PTB/LBW graded the evidence as low	Yes
da Silva 2017 ²⁰ (Brazil)	24/27	Moderate	Moderate/High	Cochrane's risk of bias tool	4 RCTs included (2006, 2013, 2015, 2015) NSPT/PTB/LBW	Yes
Schwendicke et al. 2015 ²¹ (Germany, US, Denmark)	18/27	High	Unclear	Cochrane's risk of bias tool	13 RCTs included (6283 participants) NSPT/PTB/LBW	Yes
Lopez et al. 2015 ²²	18/27	Reported individually per clinical trial	Reported individually per clinical trial	Reported individually per clinical trial	Systematic review of 6 meta-analyses	No (SR of 6 MAs)
Shah et al. 2013 ¹⁹ (India)	12/27	High	Unclear	Cochrane's risk of bias tool	13 RCTs NSPT/PTB/LBW Poor Quality SR overall	Yes
Kim et al. 2012¹⁶ (US)	25/27	High	Low	Cochrane's risk of bias tool	12 RCTs SRP/PTB	Yes (11 studies included)
Chambrone et al. 2011 ¹⁷ (Brazil)	22/27	High	Low	Cochrane's risk of bias tool	13 RCTs SRP/SRP with antibiotics PTB/LBW	11 of the 13 studies included in MA
Polyzos et al. 2010 ¹⁵ (Greece)	24/27	High	Low	Cochrane's risk of bias tool	11 RCTs (6558 participants) SRP/PTB/LBW	Yes (3 separate MAs on 11 studies)