Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality of meta-analyses according to AMSTAR 2 criteria

From: Exercise interventions for the prevention of depression: a systematic review of meta-analyses

AMSTAR 2 criteria

Brown et al. 2013 [19]

Carter et al. 2016 [25]

Conn 2010 [18]

Forsman et al. 2011 [20]

Gordon et al. 2018 [26]

Larun et al. 2006 [27]

Park et al. 2014 [28]

Rethorst et al. 2009 [17]

Did the research question and inclusion criteria include components of PICO?

V

V

V

V

X

V

V

V

Were the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review?

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Did the authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion?

X

V

X

X

V

V

V

V

Was a comprehensive literature search strategy used?

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

Was study selection performed in duplicate?

X

V

X

V

X

V

V

X

Was data extraction performed in duplicate?

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

X

Was a list of excluded studies and justification for exclusions provided?

V

V

X

X

V

V

V

X

Were the included studies described in detail?

V

V

X

X

V

V

V

V

Was a satisfactory technique used to assess RoB?

V

V

X

V

V

V

V

X

Were sources of funding of the included studies reported?

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Were appropriate methods used to statistical combine results for the meta-analyses?

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

V

Was potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analyses assessed?

V

V

X

V

X

V

V

X

Was RoB in individual studies accounted for when interpreting/discussing the results?

V

V

X

V

X

V

V

X

Was a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results provided?

V

V

V

V

X

V

X

V

Was an adequate investigation of publication bias carried out?

V

V

V

X

V

X

V

X

Did the authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest?

V

V

V

V

V

V

X

V

AMSTAR 2 score

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Low