. 2022 Oct 27;24(10):e40877. doi: 10.2196/40877

Table 1.

Reliability of included reviews based on A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review (AMSTAR 2) judgments^a.

Review ID (reference)	1^b	2^c	3^d	4^e	5^f	6^g	7^h	8ⁱ	9^j	10^k	11^l	12^m	13ⁿ	14^o	15^p	16^q	Overall quality
Allner et al [21]	Y^r	PY^s	N^t	PY	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	NMAC^u	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Brunetti al [22]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y	Very Low^v
Carbo et al [23]	Y	PY	Y	N	Y	Y	N	PY	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Very Low^v
Cordes et al [24]	Y	N	Y	PY	N	N	N	PY	Y	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Cruz et al [25]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Low^w
Elbaz et al [26]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	N	N	PY	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Farabi et al [27]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	Y	N	NMAC	NMAC	Y	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Gaveikaite et al [28]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	Y	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Glinkowski et al [29]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Hallensleben et al [30]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Hartasanchez et al [31]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Hrynyschyn et al [32]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	NMAC	NMAC	Y	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Karamanidou et al [33]	Y	PY	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	N	Y	NMAC	NMAC	N	Y	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Kierkegaard et al [34]	Y	PY	Y	PY	Y	N	N	N	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	Y	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Kingsdorf et al [35]	Y	PY	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	Y	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Labiris et al [36]	Y	N	Y	PY	N	N	N	PY	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Maresca et al [37]	Y	PY	Y	N	N	N	N	PY	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	N	Very Low^v
Martin et al [38]	Y	PY	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	Y	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
McFarland et al [39]	Y	Y	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	Y	PY	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Low^w
Mold et al [40]	Y	PY	N	PY	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	Y	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Nielsen et al [41]	Y	PY	Y	PY	N	N	N	PY	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	Y	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
O’Cathail et al [42]	Y	PY	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	Y	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Ohannessian et al [43]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Pron et al [44]	Y	PY	Y	PY	N	N	N	PY	PY	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	Y	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Raja et al [45]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Simmonds-Buckley et al [46]	Y	PY	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	PY	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Low^w
Singh et al [47]	Y	N	Y	PY	N	N	N	Y	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Tokgoz et al [48]	Y	Y	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	Y	Y	NMAC	NMAC	Y	Y	NMAC	Y	Low^w
Trettel et al [49]	Y	N	N	PY	N	N	N	N	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Udsen et al [50]	Y	PY	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	Y	NMAC	N	Very Low^v
Verma et al [51]	Y	N	Y	PY	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Willard et al [52]	N	PY	N	PY	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	N	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v
Zanin et al [53]	Y	PY	Y	PY	Y	Y	N	PY	PY	N	NMAC	NMAC	N	Y	NMAC	Y	Very Low^v

^aJudgments were made by 2 overview authors based on AMSTAR 2, a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or nonrandomized studies of health care interventions or both.

^bDomain 1—Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes)

^cDomain 2—Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established before the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?

^dDomain 3—Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?

^eDomain 4—Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?

^fDomain 5—Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?

^gDomain 6—Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?

^hDomain 7—Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?

ⁱDomain 8—Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?

^jDomain 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?

^kDomain 10—Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?

^lDomain 11—If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?

^mDomain 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?

ⁿDomain 13—Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting or discussing the results of the review?

^oDomain 14—Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?

^pDomain 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?

^qDomain 16—Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?

^rY: methodological requirements met.

^sPY: methodological requirements partly met.

^tN: methodological requirements not met.

^uNMAC: no meta-analysis conducted.

^vXX: studies rated as “critically low.”

^wX: studies rated as “low.”