Skip to main content

Table 2 AMSTAR 2 quality assessment and interrater agreement

From: A comprehensive approach to rehabilitation interventions following breast cancer treatment - a systematic review of systematic reviews

Author (ref number) Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 a Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 a, b Item 10 Item 11a,b Item 12 Item 13a Item 14a Item 15 Item 16 AMSTAR 2 rating
Bluethmann et al., 2015 [16] No No No Partial yes No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Low
Chan et al., 2010 [17] No No Yes Partial yes No Yes Yes Yes Partial yes No N/A N/A Yes No N/A Yes Low
Chao et al., 2009 [18] No No No Partial yes Yes No No Partial yes Partial yes/no No N/A N/A Yes No N/A No Low
Cheema et al., 2014 [19] No No No Partial yes Yes Yes No Partial yes Partial yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Low
Cramer et al., 2012 [20] Yes No No Partial yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes N/A Yes Moderate
Cramer et al., 2017 [21] Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Moderate
De Groef et al., 2015 [22] No No Yes Partial yes Yes No No Yes Partial yes No N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Moderate
Devoogdt et al., 2010 [23] No No No Partial yes No No No Partial yes Partial yes/No No N/A N/A Yes No No No Low
Duijts et al., 2011 [24] No No Yes Partial yes No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Low
Ezzo et al., 2015 [25] Yes Yes Yes Partial yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Moderate
Fors et al., 2011 [26] No No No No Yes No No Partial yes Partial yes No N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A No Low
Huang et al., 2013 [27] No No No Partial yes No Yes No Partial yes Partial yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Low
Huang et al., 2016 [28] Yes No No Partial yes No Yes No Partial yes Yes/Partial yes No Yes/No No Yes Yes N/A Yes Moderate
Jassim et al., 2015 [29] Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes High
Johanssen et al., 2013 [30] No No Yes Partial yes Yes No No No Partial yes/No No Yes/No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Low
Juvet et al., 2017 [31] No No No Partial yes Yes Yes No Yes Partial yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Low
Keilani et al., 2016 [32] No No No Partial yes Yes No No Partial yes No No N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Low
Lee et al., 2010 [33] Yes No No Partial yes Yes Yes No Yes Partial yes/No No Yes/No No Yes Yes No No Low
Lee et al., 2016 [34] Yes No No Partial yes Yes Yes No Partial yes Partial yes No Yes No Yes No No No Low
Matsuda et al., 2014 [35] Yes No No Partial yes No No No No Partial yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No Low
Matthews et al., 2017 [36] No Partial yes No Partial yes Yes No No No No/No No Yes/No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Low
McNeely et al., 2010 [37] Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial yes Partial yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Moderate
Meneses-Echavez et al., 2015 [38] Yes Yes No Partial yes Yes Yes No Partial yes Partial yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Low
Omar et al., 2012 [39] Yes No Yes Partial yes No No No Partial yes Partial yes/No No N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes Moderate
Pan et al., 2014 [40] No No No Partial yes No No No Partial yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Low
Pan et al., 2015 [41] Yes No No Partial yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Moderate
Pan et al., 2017 [42] Yes No No Partial yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Low
Rogan et al., 2016 [43] Yes Yes No Partial yes Yes Yes No Partial yes Yes/No No Yes/Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Moderate
Shao et al., 2017 [44] Yes No Yes Partial yes Yes Yes No Partial yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Moderate
Short et al., 2013 [45] Yes No No Partial yes No Yes No Partial yes Partial yes No N/A N/A Yes Yes N/A No Moderate
Singh Paramanandam et al., 2014 [46] Yes Yes Yes Partial yes No No No Yes Partial yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No Low
Stuiver et al., 2015 [47] Yes Yes No Partial yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes High
Xiao et al., 2017 [48] Yes No Yes Partial yes No Yes No Partial yes Partial yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Moderate
Yan et al., 2014 [49] Yes No Yes Partial yes No Yes No Partial yes Partial yes No Yes No Yes Yes N/A Yes Moderate
Zeng et al., 2014 [50] No No No Partial yes Yes No No Partial yes Yes/No No Yes/No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Low
Zhang et al., 2012 [51] Yes No Yes Partial yes No Yes No Partial yes Partial yes No Yes No Yes Yes N/A Yes Moderate
Zhu et al., 2016 [52] Yes No No Partial yes No Yes No Partial yes Partial yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Low
Kappa coefficientC 0.83 0.88 0.73 0.66 0.64 0.88 1.0 0.56 0.60/0.93 0.79 0.86/0.81 0.71 0.30 0.28 0.74 0.85  
  1. Item 1: Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? Item 2: Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? Item 3: Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? Item 4: Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? Item 5: Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? Item 6: Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? Item 7: Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? Item 8: Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? Item 9: Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? (RCT/NRSI) Item 10: Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? Item 11: If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? (RCT/NRSI) Item 12: If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? Item 13: Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? Item 14: Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? Item 15: If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? Item 16: Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?
  2. aCritical domain, bIncludes seperate evaluations of RCT and NRIS. CInterrater agreement. Quality rating: High: No critical flaw and maximun one non-critical weakness, Moderate: No critical flaw and 2–6 non-critical weakness, Low: one critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses or 7 or more non-critical weaknesses