Table 2.
Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses included in this overview review using AMSTAR 2
| AMSTAR 2 DOMAIN | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author, Year (Reference) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | AMSTAR 2 Rating |
| Bachmann 2010 [15] | Y | N | N | PY | Y | N | N | Y | PY | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Moderate |
| De Morton, 2007 [17] | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | PY | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Low |
| Handoll, 2011 [40] | Y | Y | N | PY | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | NMA | NMA | Y | Y | N | Y | Moderate |
| Heldmann, 2019 [41] | Y | PY | N | PY | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | NMA | NMA | N | Y | NMA | Y | Low |
| Machado, 2020 [42] | Y | PY | N | PY | Y | N | N | PY | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Moderate |
| Martinez-Velilla, 2016 [43] | Y | N | Y | PY | Y | N | N | Y | PY | N | NMA | NMA | N | N | N | Y | Low |
| Peck 2020 [44] | Y | N | N | N | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | NMA | NMA | N | N | NMA | Y | Critically low |
| Peiris 2018 [45] | Y | Y | N | PY | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Moderate |
| Scrivener, 2015 [46] | Y | Y | N | PY | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Low |
| Smith, 2020a [47] | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | Y | Moderate |
| Smith 2020b [48] | Y | Y | N | PY | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Moderate |
| Yasmeen 2020 [49] | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | NMA | NMA | Y | Y | NMA | Y | Moderate |
Abbreviations: AMSTAR 2: Y meets the requirement, PY partial yes, N = does not meet the requirement, NMA no meta-analysis conducted, NSRI Only includes non-randomised studies of interventions, RCT Only includes RCTs
AMSTAR 2 DOMAINS: 1. PICO - “Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? 2. Protocol – “Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods was established prior to the conduct of the review, and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 3. Study design – Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 4. Search strategy – Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 5. Study selection – Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 6. Data extraction – Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 7. Excluded studies – Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 8. Included studies – Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 9. Risk of bias – Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 10. Funding sources – Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 11. Meta-analysis – If a meta-analysis was justified did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? 12. Impact risk of bias – 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. Discussing risk of bias – Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? 14. Heterogeneity – Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 15. Publication bias – 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 results of the review? 16. Conflicts of interest – Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?