Figure - PMC

Skip to main content

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

View full-text article in PMC

. 2022 Mar 29;9(3):e34760. doi: 10.2196/34760

Search in PMC
Search in PubMed
View in NLM Catalog
Add to search

©David Villarreal-Zegarra, Christoper A Alarcon-Ruiz, GJ Melendez-Torres, Roberto Torres-Puente, Alba Navarro-Flores, Victoria Cavero, Juan Ambrosio-Melgarejo, Jefferson Rojas-Vargas, Guillermo Almeida, Leonardo Albitres-Flores, Alejandra B Romero-Cabrera, Jeff Huarcaya-Victoria. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org), 29.03.2022.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Mental Health, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mental.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

PMC Copyright notice

Risk of bias assessment of individual studies, according to AMSTAR-2. 1: Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO (Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes)? *2: Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? (critical item); 3: Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? *4: Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? (critical item); 5: Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 6: Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? *7: Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? (critical item); 8: Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? *9: Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? (critical item); 10: Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? *11: If meta-analysis was justified, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? (critical item); 12: 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? *13: Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? (critical item); 14: Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? *15: 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? (critical item); 16: Conflict of interest declaration.