Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 23;11:694821. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.694821

Table 4.

Critical appraisal of included meta-analyses based on AMSTAR-2 and evidence grading.

Study Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 AMSTAR-2 overall quality
Cai et al., 2020 (19) Y N N Y Y Y N PY Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Low-quality review
Yin et al., 2019 (20) Y N N Y Y Y N PY Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Low-quality review
Gong et al., 2019 (8) Y N N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Moderate-quality review
Gao et al., 2019 (21) Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Moderate-quality review
Lu et al., 2019 (11) Y N N Y Y Y N PY Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Moderate-quality review
Tian et al., 2018 (13) Y N N Y Y Y N PY Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Low-quality review
Xu et al., 2018 (23) Y N N PY Y N N N Y N Y N N Y Y Y Low-quality review
Zhao et al., 2018 (24) Y N N Y N Y N N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Low-quality review
Chen et al., 2018 (25) Y N N Y N Y N PY Y N Y N N Y Y Y Low-quality review
Zhu et al., 2018 (14) Y N N PY Y Y N PY Y N Y N N Y Y Y Low-quality review
Chen et al., 2017 (26) N N N PY N Y N PY Y N Y N N N Y N Low-quality review
Ma et al., 2017 (27) Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Low-quality review
Huang et al., 2017 (28) Y N N PY Y Y N PY Y N Y N N Y Y Y Low-quality review
Yang et al., 2017 (29) Y N N Y Y Y N PY Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Moderate-quality review
Ethier et al., 2017 (10) Y N N Y Y Y N PY N N Y N N Y Y Y Low-quality review
Zhou et al., 2017 (30) Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Moderate-quality review

N, no; PY, partial yes; Y, yes.

AMSTAR-2 items: Q1: Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? Q2: 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? Q3: Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? Q4: Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? Q5: Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? Q6: Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? Q7: Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? Q8: Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? Q9: Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? Q10: Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? Q11: If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? Q12: 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? Q13: Did the review authors account for RoB in primary studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? Q14: Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? Q15: 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? Q16: Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?

Critical items in AMSTAR-2.