Table 2.
Quality assessment of all included systematic reviews using AMSTAR 2.
| Study ID | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | Rating Overall Confidence * |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moura (2018) [9] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Critically low |
| Kim (2018) [10] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Moderate |
| Lu (2018) [11] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Low |
| Ma (2018) [18] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Low |
| Li (2017) [19] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Moderate |
| Zhang (2017) [20] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Low |
| Cao (2010) [21] | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Critically low |
| Cao (2012) [22] | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Critically low |
| Lee (2010a) [23] | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No-MA | No-MA | Yes | No-MA | No-MA | Yes | Critically low |
| Seo (2018) [24] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Low |
| Xing (2020) [17] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Moderate |
| Xiao (2020) [25] | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Moderate |
| Yang (2020) [26] | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Low |
AMSTAR 2: A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2; No-MA: No meta-analysis conducted. 1. components of PICO/2. established prior to the conduct of the review/3. explain their selection of the study designs/4. comprehensive search/5. duplicate selection/6. duplicate extraction/7. list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions/8. describe the included studies in adequate detail/9. use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB)/10. report on the sources of funding/11. use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results/12. assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results/13. account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?/14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review/15. Publication bias assessed/16. Include conflict of interest * AMSTAR2 was used to critically appraise the reporting quality of each included SR. The overall confidence of each SR was graded as “high”, “moderate”, “low” or “critically low”.