Table 5. Quality assessment using AMSTAR criteria for evaluation of selected systematic review studies.
AMSTAR: Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews
| AMSTAR 2 criteria | Spivak & Hanson [15] | Septimus [16] | Miller et al. [17] | Seo & Song [18] | Effah et al. [19] | Eljaaly et al. [20] |
| Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? | No | No | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Was an “a priori” design implemented? | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? | No | No | No | Unclear | Yes | Yes |
| 4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| 8. Did the review authors describe the studies included in adequate detail? | Partial Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies that were included in the review? | No | No | No | Unclear | No | Yes |
| 10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 11. If a meta-analysis was performed, did the authors use appropriate methods to statistically combine results? | No meta-analysis conducted | No meta-analysis conducted | No meta-analysis conducted | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 12. If a meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of risk of bias in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? | No meta-analysis conducted | No meta-analysis conducted | No meta-analysis conducted | Unclear | No | Yes |
| 13. Did the review authors account for risk of bias in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? | No | No | No | Unclear | No | No |
| 14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for and discussion of any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes |
| 15. If they performed quantitative synthesis, did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its impact on the results of the review? | No meta-analysis conducted | No meta-analysis conducted | No meta-analysis conducted | Unclear | No | Yes |
| 16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Total score (out of 16) | 6.5 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 14 |
| Overall methodological quality | Moderate | low | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | High |