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

van der Linde, Rianne M; Stephan, Blossom CM; Savva, George M; Dening, Tom; Brayne, Carol

doi:10.1186/alzrt131

Alzheimer's Research & Therapy

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

Response options: yes, no, can't answer, not applicable.
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.

Back to article page

ISSN: 1758-9193

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com