Table 9.
The risk of bias and study quality for each fibromyalgia review
| Fibromyalgia | AMSTAR-2 | ROBIS |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple CAM therapies | ||
| Holdcraft 2003 [14] | CL | Low |
| Baronowsky 2009 [15] | CL | High |
| Terhorst 2011, 2012 [16, 17] | CL | High |
| De Silva 2010 [18] | CL | High |
| Homoeopathy | ||
| Perry 2010 [19] | CL | Low |
| Boehm 2014 [20] | CL | High |
| Chiropractic treatment | ||
| Ernst 2009 [21] | CL | Unclear |
| Acupuncture | ||
| Mayhew and Ernst 2007 [22] | CL | Low |
| Daya 2007 [23] | CL | Low |
| Langhorst 2010 [24] | CL | Low |
| Martin-Sanchez 2009 [25] | CL | High |
| Cao 2013 [26] | CL | Low |
| Deare 2013 [13] | LOW | Low |
| Yang 2014 [27] | CL | High |
| Herbal medicines | ||
| de Souza Nascimento 2013 [28] | CL | Low |
When AMSTAR-2 is low, this should correspond to ROBIS being of high risk of bias. The italicised reviews show discrepancies between the overall rating of quality/bias