Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality assessment for included reviews

From: Examining the effectiveness of place-based interventions to improve public health and reduce health inequalities: an umbrella review

KEY 1. Was an a priori design provided? 2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? 3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? 4. Was the status of publication used as an inclusion criteria? 5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? 6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? 7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? 9. Were the methods used to combine the findings appropriate? 10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? 11. Was the conflict of interest included? R-AMSTAR SCORE
Y YES N NO
Study
Brown et al (2015) N 2 N 1 Y 4 Y 3 N 1 Y 4 Y 4 Y 2 Y 1 N 1 N 3 26 (medium)
Audrey & Batista-Ferrer (2015) Y 3 Y 2 Y 4 Y 3 N 2 Y 2 Y 4 Y 4 Y 2 Y 2 N 1 31 (medium)
Hunter et al (2015) N 2 N 1 Y 3 N 1 N 1 Y 3 Y 3 Y 4 Y 1 N 1 N 2 22 (low)
Mayne et al (2015) N 2 N 1 N 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 3 Y 4 Y 3 N 1 N 1 N 2 21 (low)
Sauni et al (2015) Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 2 N 3 41 (high)
McCartney et al (2017) N 2 N 1 N 2 Y 2 N 1 Y 1 Y 1 Y 4 Y 1 N 1 N 1 17 (low)
Macmillan et al (2018) N 3 Y 4 Y 4 Y 2 Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 1 N 1 N 3 34 (high)
Moore et al (2018) Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 3 Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 2 Y 3 N 1 N 3 36 (high)
Stappers et al (2018) Y 3 Y 3 Y 3 Y 2 Y 3 Y 3 Y 4 Y 3 N 1 N 1 N 2 28 (medium)
Tseng et al (2018) Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 3 N 1 Y 3 Y 4 Y 4 Y 2 Y 2 N 2 33 (medium)
Hunter et al (2019) Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 3 Y 1 Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 3 N 2 N 3 36 (high)
Ige et al (2019) N 2 Y 2 Y 4 Y 2 Y 1 N 1 Y 3 Y 4 N 1 N 1 N 2 23 (medium)
Persaud et al (2019) Y 4 Y 4 Y 3 Y 3 Y 3 Y 4 Y 4 Y 4 Y 1 N 1 N 2 33 (medium)