Skip to main content

Table 2 AMSTAR-2 Systematic Reviews

From: Efficacy of systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced esophageal or gastric cancers at high risk of dying in the middle and short term: an overview of systematic reviews

  Iacovelli 2014 [23] TerVeer 2016 [24] Wang 2016 [25] Chan 2017a [26] Chan 2017b [27] Harvey 2017 [28] Janmaat 2017 [15] Wagner 2017 [29] Wang 2017 [30] Xie 2017 [31] Zhu 2017 [32] Liu 2018 [33] Zhao 2018 [34] Chen 2019 [35] van Kleef 2019 [36] Wallis 2019 [37]
1. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
2. No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No
3. Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No
4. Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes No Partial Yes Partial Yes Partial Yes Partial Yes Partial Yes
5. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
6. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
7. No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No
8. Yes Partial Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Partial Yes No Partial Yes Partial Yes Partial Yes
9a. Partial Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes Yes Yes Partial Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
9b. Includes only RCTs Includes only RCTs Includes only RCTs Includes only RCTs Includes only RCTs Includes only RCTs Includes only RCTs Includes only RCTs Includes only RCTs Includes only RCTs Yes Includes only RCTs Includes only RCTs No Includes only RCTs Includes only RCTs
10. No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes
11a. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No meta-analysis conducted Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
11b. Yes No meta-analysis conducted No meta-analysis conducted No meta-analysis conducted No meta-analysis conducted Yes No meta-analysis conducted No meta-analysis conducted No meta-analysis conducted No meta-analysis conducted Yes No meta-analysis conducted No meta-analysis conducted No meta-analysis conducted No meta-analysis conducted No meta-analysis conducted
12. No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes
13. No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes
14. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No
15. Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
16. No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
QUALITY OF THE REVIEW CRITICALLY LOW CRITICALLY LOW CRITICALLY LOW CRITICALLY LOW HIGH CRITICALLY LOW LOW LOW CRITICALLY LOW CRITICALLY LOW CRITICALLY LOW CRITICALLY LOW CRITICALLY LOW CRITICALLY LOW CRITICALLY LOW CRITICALLY LOW
Number of critical flaws 6 5 2 3 0 6 1 1 2 8 2 3 5 5 6 6
Number of non-critical flaws 4 3 1 3 1 6 1 1 3 6 1 3 6 5 6 3
  1. 1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? 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? 3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 9a. RCT: Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 9b. NSRI: Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 11a. RCT: If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? 11b. NSRI: If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? 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? 13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 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? 16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?