Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality assessment for reviewing the systematic reviews (AMSTAR®)

From: The ticking time bomb in lifestyle-related diseases among women in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries; review of systematic reviews

  (Aljefree & Ahmed, 2015) [26] (Alharbi et al., 2014) [21] (Alhyas et al., 2012) [24] Musaiger and Al-Hazzaa 2012 [23] Alhyas et al., 2011) [25] (S. W. Ng et al., 2011) [28] (Musaiger, 2011) [22] (Akl et al., 2011) [58] (Mabry et al., 2010a) [38] (Mabry et al., 2010b) [66] (Motlagh et al., 2009) [27]
1. Was an ‘a priori’ design provided? No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Yes
2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Can’t answer No No
3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No
5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No
8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? No No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes
9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? No No No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Yes
10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? No No No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
11. Was the conflict of interest included? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Total/11 6 4 9 3 8 5 2 7 5 5 5