Table 4 AMSTAR Criteria for Included Systematic Reviews
Items | Parker et al. 2001 | Parker et al. 2004 | Parker et al. 2007 | Zhang et al. 2011 | Zhou et al. 2013 | Chen et al. 2014 | Kelly et al. 2014 | Li et al. 2015 | Quinn et al. 2015 | Si et al. 2016 | Zan et al. 2016 | Zhang et al. 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Was a prior design provided? | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Was there duplicate selection and data extraction? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Was a comprehensive literature search preformed? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Was a list of included/excluded studies provided? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Were the profiles of the included studies provided? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Was the methodological quality of the included studies evaluated and documented? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Was the publication bias evaluated? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Were the conflicts of interest stated? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Total score | 9 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 |