Figures legends
Figure 1: PRISMA flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included
searches of databases, registers, and other sources of the screening
process.
Figure 2: Quality analysis of Systematic Reviews according to AMSTAR 2
Legend: D1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the
review include the components of PICO? YES or NO.”; D2. Did the report
of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were
established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report
justify any significant deviations from the protocol? YES, PARTIAL YES
or NO.; D3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study
designs for inclusion in the review? YES or NO.; D4. Did the review
authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? YES, PARTIAL YES
or NO.; D5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?
YES or NO.; D6. Did the review authors perform data extraction
in duplicate? YES or NO.; D7. Did the review authors provide a list of
excluded studies and justify the exclusions? YES, PARTIAL YES or NO.;
D8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate
detail? YES, PARTIAL YES or NO.; D9. Did the review authors use a
satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in
individual studies that were included in the review? YES, PARTIAL YES or
NO.; D10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for
the studies included in the review? YES or NO.; D11. If meta-analysis
was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for
statistical combination of results? Yes, No or No meta-analysis
conducted.; D12. 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? Yes, No or No
meta-analysis conducted.; D13. Did the review authors account for RoB in
individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the
review? Yes, No or No meta-analysis conducted.; D14. Did the review
authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any
heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? YES or NO.; D15. 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? Yes, No or No
meta-analysis conducted.; D16. Did the review authors report any
potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they
received for conducting the review? YES or NO. Y= Yes, N= No, N/MA= No
meta-analysis conducted.
Figure 3: Rating overall confidence in the results of the review
according to AMSTAR2.
Figure 4: Quality analysis of Systematic Reviews according to OQAQ.
Legend: D1. Were the search methods reported? D2. Was the search
comprehensive? D3. Were the inclusion criteria reported? D4. Was
selection bias avoided? D5. Were the validity criteria reported? D6. Was
validity assessed appropriately? D7. Were the methods used to combine
studies reported? D8. Were the findings combined appropriately? D9. Were
the conclusions supported by the reported data? D10. What was the
overall scientific quality of the overview? Y= YES, N= NO, CT= Can’t
Tell.
Figure 5: Quality analysis of Systematic Reviews according to CASP.
Legend: D1. Did the review address a clearly focused question? D2. Did
the authors look for the right type of papers? D3. “Do you think all
the important, relevant studies were included? D4. Did the review’s
authors do enough to assess quality of the included studies? D5. If the
results of the review have been combined, was it reasonable to do so?
D6. What are the overall results of the review? D7. How precise are the
results? D8. Can the results be applied to the local population? D9.
Were all important outcomes considered? D10. Are the benefits worth the
harms and costs? Y= YES, N= NO, CT= Can’t Tell.
Figure 6. Identifying concerns with the review process according to
ROBIS 2 tool domains. Domain 1: study eligibility criteria; Domain 2:
identification and selection of studies; Domain 3: data collection and
study appraisal; Domain 4: synthesis and findings.
Legend: D1.1 Did the review adhere to pre-defined objectives and
eligibility criteria? Y/PY/PN/N/NI.; D1.2 Were the eligibility criteria
appropriate for the review question? Y/PY/PN/N/NI.; D1.3 Were
eligibility criteria unambiguous? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D1.4 Were any
restrictions in eligibility criteria based on study characteristics
appropriate (e.g. date, sample size, study quality, outcomes measured)?
Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D1.5 Were any restrictions in eligibility criteria based
on sources of information appropriate (e.g. publication status or
format, language, availability of data)? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D2.1 Did the
search include an appropriate range of databases/electronic sources for
published and unpublished reports? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D2.2 Were methods
additional to database searching used to identify relevant reports?
Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D2.3 Were the terms and structure of the search strategy
likely to retrieve as many eligible studies as possible? Y/PY/PN/N/NI;
D2.4 Were restrictions based on date, publication format, or language
appropriate? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D2.5 Were efforts made to minimise error in
selection of studies? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D3.1 Were efforts made to minimise
error in data collection? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D3.2 Were sufficient study
characteristics available for both review authors and readers to be able
to interpret the results? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D3.3 Were all relevant study
results collected for use in the synthesis? Y/PY/PN/N/NI D3.4 Was risk
of bias (or methodological quality) formally assessed using appropriate
criteria? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D3.5 Were efforts made to minimise error in risk
of bias assessment? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D4.1 Did the synthesis include all
studies that it should? Y/PY/PN/N/NI 4.2 Were all pre-defined analyses
reported or departures explained? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D4.3 Was the synthesis
appropriate given the nature and similarity in the research questions,
study designs and outcomes across included studies? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D4.4
Was between-study variation (heterogeneity) minimal or addressed in the
synthesis? Y/PY/PN/N/NI; D4.5 Were the findings robust, e.g. as
demonstrated through funnel plot or sensitivity analyses? Y/PY/PN/N/NI;
D4.6 Were biases in primary studies minimal or addressed in the
synthesis? Y=YES, PY=PROBABLY YES, PN=PROBABLY NO, N=NO, NI=NO
INFORMATION
Figure 7: Bias risk classification according to ROBIS 2 domains.