Table 3.
Quality Assessment of the Included Reviews Using the AMSTAR Tool (n = 26)
| Authors, Year | AMSTAR Items | Total | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Y | N | C | |
| Luo et al,202015 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 9 | 2 | 0 |
| Lee et al, 201016 | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 7 | 4 | 0 |
| Pan et al, 201517 | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 6 | 5 | 0 |
| Yan et al, 201418 | N | N | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 6 | 5 | 0 |
| Zhang et al, 201219 | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | 1 | 0 |
| Buffart et al,201220 | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Cramer et al,201221 | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Dong et al, 201922 | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | 2 | 0 |
| Ford et al, 202023 | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | 2 | 0 |
| Hashimi et al,201924 | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Harder et al, 201225 | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Lee et al, 200726 | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 5 | 6 | 0 |
| Pan et al, 201527 | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 6 | 5 | 0 |
| Wang et al, 202028 | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Sadja et al, 201329 | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 7 | 4 | 0 |
| Liu et al, 202030 | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Espíndula et al,201731 | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Carral et al, 201832 | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 9 | 2 | 0 |
| Zeng et al, 201433 | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Wayne et al, 201734 | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Zeng et al, 201935 | N | C | N | C | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 6 | 3 | 2 |
| Liu et al, 201136 | N | C | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 5 | 5 | 1 |
| Pan et al, 201637 | N | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | 6 | 5 | 0 |
| Yan et al, 201338 | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Zhang et al, 201539 | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| Wu et al, 201840 | N | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 6 | 5 | 0 |
| Percentage of systematic reviews meeting each criteria | 11.5 | 80.8 | 42.3 | 11.5 | 88.5 | 100.0 | 96.2 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 69.2 | 46.2 | |||
Notes: AMSTAR items: Q1, a-priori design; Q2, duplicate study selection and data extraction; Q3, search comprehensiveness; Q4, status of publication (eg, non-English articles or dissertations); Q5, listing included and excluded studies; Q6, characteristics of the primary studies provided; Q7, scientific quality of the primary studies assessed and documented; Q8, scientific quality of the included data used appropriately in drawing conclusions; Q9, appropriateness of methods used to combine the findings of the primary studies; Q10, assessment of publication bias; and Q11, acknowledgement of conflicts of interest and potential sources of support in both the systematic review and the primary studies. Y, yes; N, no; C, cannot answer. We assigned 1 point to each “yes” item. The sub-column “Y”, the AMSTAR score, represents the quality of each included study which is the most important column in the table. The last row in the table indicates the percentage of included studies which met each item in AMSTAR scale. Bases on this, the methodological issues of included studies were identified.