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
Back to article page

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us