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