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