Table 2.
The critical assessment of included review papers.
| Including review paper (n = 14) | JBI critical appraisal checklist systematic review | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
| Wilson et al. (34) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y |
| Gise and Cohen (35) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y |
| Costa et al. (29) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Kimbell et al. (36) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
| Boehm and Carter (37) | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y |
| Nuske et al. (38) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
| Rea et al. (39) | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Zhao et al. (30) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
| Boshoff et al. (40) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
| Delemere and Maguire (28) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
| Lumsden et al. (41) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N |
| Zhang et al. (42) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N |
| Tang et al. (43) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Bourke-Taylor et al. (44) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y |
Y, Yes; N, No; U, Unclear; NA, Not applicable. 1. Is the review question clearly and explicitly state?; 2. Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question?; 3. Was the search strategy appropriate?; 4. Were the sources and resources used to search for studies adequate?; 5. Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate?; 6. Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently?; 7. Were there methods to minimize errors in data extraction?; 8. Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate?; 9. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?; 10. Were recommendations for policy and/or practice supported by the reported data?; 11. Were the specific directives for new research appropriate?