Table 2.
Quality appraisal and summary of the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (n=20)
| Author | Appraisal rating (PRISMA) | AMSTAR Score (%)/Quality | Heterogeneity | Risk of Bias | Instrument (s) of Quality Assessment | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pramila R [ 31 ] | 11/27 | 56/Low | Not specified | Unclear (the authors did not specify quality appraisal for the included studies) | Not specified | This review is lacking for some essential elements of a systematic review (the quality appraisal of the studies selected) |
| Kontakiotis EG [ 32 ] | 18/27 | 75/Moderate | Not specified | Unclear | Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) | This systematic review included case reports |
| Antunes LS [ 33 ] | 22/27 | 75/Moderate | Not specified | Unclear (the authors did not specify quality appraisal for the included studies) | Not specified | This review is lacking for some essential elements of a systematic review (the quality appraisal of the studies selected) |
| Conde MCM [ 34 ] | 7/27 | 56/Low | Not specified | Unclear (the authors did not specify quality appraisal for the included studies) | Not specified | This review is lacking for some essential elements of a systematic review (the quality appraisal of the studies selected) |
| Lolato A [ 35 ] | 24/27 | 88/High | Not specified | Moderate | Not specified | This systematic review did not specify the heterogeneity in the studies, and did not justify the conduction of a meta-analysis, although present some statistics. The existing literature lacks high-level clinical studies |
| Meschi M [ 36 ] | 23/27 | 94/High | High | Moderate | Cochrane Collaboration’s tool | There was considerable heterogeneity between the RCTs with regard to the type of therapy, type of APCs, assessment method, and study quality, and therefore the data could not be analyzed quantitatively |
| Ragab RA [ 37 ] | 20/27 | 75/Moderate | Not specified | Unclear | Critical appraisal approach used by the Oxford Centre for Evidence Medicine | This systematic review included case reports |
| Bucchi C [ 38 ] | 16/27 | 75/Moderate | High (exact value was not specified) | Unclear (the authors did not specify quality appraisal for the included studies) | Not specified | This review is lacking for some essential elements of a systematic review (the quality appraisal of the studies selected). The review also included animal studies |
| Duggal M [ 39 ] | 19/27 | 88/High | Not specified | Moderate | Cochrane Collaboration’s tool | The existing literature lacks high-level clinical studies |
| Kahler B [ 40 ] | 15/27 | 75/Moderate | Not specified | Unclear (the authors did not specify quality appraisal for the included studies) | Not specified | This review is lacking for some essential elements of a systematic review (the quality appraisal of the studies selected) |
| Nicoloso GF [ 41 ] | 25/27 | 88/High | Low (I < 50%) | Moderate | Cochrane Collaboration’s tool | The results must be carefully interpreted, considering the quality assessment of the included studies, and the risk of bias for some of them |
| Tong HJ [ 42 ] | 25/27 | 94/High | Variable (depending on the subgroup analysis) | Moderate | For observational studies (cohort and case-control studies) the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used. For studies with randomized controlled trials and uncontrolled prospective trial designs the authors used the Cochrane Collaboration´s tool and for uncontrolled longitudinal studies, a modification including the judgment of not applicable was introduced for domains such as randomization and allocation concealment | The existing literature evidenced many knowledge gaps according to the studies´ findings |
| Torabinejad M [ 43 ] | 25/27 | 88/High | Variable (depending on the subgroup analysis (Low for survival rates (I2<50%, P>0.10) and High for success rates) | Moderate | A quality appraisal instrument developed for the authors in a previous study and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool | The existing literature lacks high-level clinical studies |
| Chisini LA [ 44 ] | 23/27 | 88/High | High (exact value was not specified) | High | Cochrane Collaboration’s tool | The results must be carefully interpreted, considering the quality assessment of the included studies, and the risk of bias for some of them |
| Metlerska J [ 45 ] | 20/27 | 81/High | Variable (depending on the subgroup analysis) | Moderate | Cochrane Collaboration’s tool | The methodological quality of the studies was generally poor (in case of RCT) |
| Murray PE [ 46 ] | 12/27 | 56/Low | Not specified | Unclear (the authors did not specify quality appraisal for the included studies) | Not specified | This review is lacking for some essential elements of a systematic review (the quality appraisal of the studies selected) |
| do Couto AM [ 47 ] | 26/27 | 81/High | High (exact value was not specified) | Unclear | Cochrane Collaboration’s tool | The existing literature evidenced many knowledge gaps according to the studies’ findings |
| Nicoloso GF [ 48 ] | 26/27 | 88/High | Low (I<50%) | Moderate | Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) | The existing literature evidenced many knowledge gaps according to the studies’ findings |
| Rossi-Fedele G [ 49 ] | 21/27 | 75/Moderate | Not specified | Moderate | Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports | This systematic review included case reports and animal studies |
| Koç S [ 50 ] | 27/27 | 100/High | Low (I=0%) | Moderate | Cochrane Collaboration’s tool | The existing literature evidenced many knowledge gaps according to the studies’ findings |