Skip to main content

Table 3 Methodological quality of systematic reviews assessed with the AMSTAR measurement tool

From: Systematic reviews on behavioural and psychological symptoms in the older or demented population

Author 1 A priori design 2 Duplicate 3 Search 4 Publication status 5 List of studies 6 Characteristics studies 7 Scientific quality reported 8 Conclusions 9 Combination methods 10 Publication bias 11 Conflict of interest Score Quality
Almeida [45] Can't answer Can't answer No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 4 Low
Alwahhabi [32] Can't answer Can't answer No No No No Yes No Not applicable No No 1 Low
Apostolova [22] Can't answer Can't answer No No No Yes Yes Yes Not applicable No No 3 Low
Banerjee [53] Can't answer Can't answer Can't answer No No No No No Not applicable No No 0 Low
Beekman [29] Can't answer Can't answer No Can't answer No Yes Yes Yes Not applicable No No 3 Low
Black [52] Can't answer Can't answer Can't answer No No Yes Yes Yes No No No 3 Low
Camus [48] No Yes No No No No No No Not applicable No No 1 Low
Chen [20] No Can't answer No Yes No I Yes No Yes Yes No No 4 Low
Cole [50] Can't answer No Can't answer No No Yes Yes No No No No 2 Low
Djernes [31] Can't answer Can't answer Can't answer Can't answer No Yes Yes No Not applicable No No 2 Low
Fischer [55] Can't answer Can't answer Can't answer No No Yes No Yes Not applicable No No 2 Low
Flirski [42] Can't answer Can't answer No Can't answer No No No No Not applicable No No 0 Low
Floyd [40] Can't answer Can't answer Can't answer No No No No No Yes No No 1 Low
Floyd [39] Can't answer Yes Can't answer Yes No No No No No No No 2 Low
Gaugler [51] Can't answer Yes Can't answer Yes No Yes Yes Yes Not applicable No No 5 Moderate
Huang [35] Can't answer Yes Can't answer Can't answer No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 5 Moderate
Huang [43] Can't answer Yes Can't answer Can't answer No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 5 Moderate
Huang [44] Can't answer Yes Can't answer No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 5 Moderate
Jorm [33, 36, 37] No Can't answer Can't answer Can't answer No No No No No No No 0 Low
Kuo [47] Can't answer Yes No No No Yes No Yes Not applicable No No 3 Low
Kuo [41] Can't answer Can't answer No No No I Yes No Yes Not applicable No No 3 Low
Lee [54] Can't answer Can't answer No No No Yes No No Not applicable No No 1 Low
Luppa [28] Can't answer No Can't answer No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 5 Moderate
Meeks [30] Can't answer Can't answer No No No Yes No Yes Not applicable No No 2 Low
Monastero [21] Can't answer Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Not applicable No No 4 Low
Ohayon [38] Can't answer Can't answer Can't answer No No Yes Yes Yes No No No 3 Low
Ropacki [27] Can't answer Can't answer Can't answer No No Yes No No Not applicable No No 1 Low
Seitz [23] Can't answer Yes Can't answer Can't answer No Yes No Yes Not applicable No No 3 Low
Shub [25] Can't answer Can't answer No No No Yes Yes Yes Not applicable No No 3 Moderate
Stetler [46] Can't answer No No No No Yes No Yes No No No 3 Low
Verkaik [34] Yes Yes Can't answer No No Yes Yes Yes Not applicable No No 5 Moderate
Vink [49] Can't answer Can't answer Can't answer No No Yes No No Not applicable No No 1 Low
Wragg [26] Can't answer Can't answer No No No Yes No Yes Not applicable No No 2 Low
Zuidema [24] Can't answer Can't answer No Can't answer No Yes No No Not applicable No No 2 Low
  1. Response options: yes, no, can't answer, not applicable.
  2. Full questions: A priori design: Was an "a priori" design provided? Duplicate: Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? Search: Was a comprehensive literature search performed? Publication status: Was the status of publication (that is, grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? List of studies: Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? Characteristics studies: Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? Scientific quality reported: Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? Conclusion: Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? Combination methods: Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? Publication bias: Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? Conflict of interest: Was the conflict of interest stated? Score: The maximum AMSTAR score a review can receive is 11 (11 for meta-analyses and 10 for systematic reviews) Quality: Scores of 0 to 4 indicated low quality, 5 to 8 moderate quality, and 9 to 11 high quality.