Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses included in this overview review using AMSTAR 2

From: Effect of inpatient rehabilitation treatment ingredients on functioning, quality of life, length of stay, discharge destination, and mortality among older adults with unplanned admission: an overview review

AMSTAR 2 DOMAIN

Author, Year (Reference)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

AMSTAR 2 Rating

Bachmann 2010 [15]

Y

N

N

PY

Y

N

N

Y

PY

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Moderate

De Morton, 2007 [17]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

PY

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

Low

Handoll, 2011 [40]

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

NMA

NMA

Y

Y

N

Y

Moderate

Heldmann, 2019 [41]

Y

PY

N

PY

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

NMA

NMA

N

Y

NMA

Y

Low

Machado, 2020 [42]

Y

PY

N

PY

Y

N

N

PY

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Moderate

Martinez-Velilla, 2016 [43]

Y

N

Y

PY

Y

N

N

Y

PY

N

NMA

NMA

N

N

N

Y

Low

Peck 2020 [44]

Y

N

N

N

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

NMA

NMA

N

N

NMA

Y

Critically low

Peiris 2018 [45]

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Moderate

Scrivener, 2015 [46]

Y

Y

N

PY

N

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Low

Smith, 2020a [47]

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

N

N

Y

Moderate

Smith 2020b [48]

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Moderate

Yasmeen 2020 [49]

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

NMA

NMA

Y

Y

NMA

Y

Moderate

  1. Abbreviations: AMSTAR 2: Y meets the requirement, PY partial yes, N = does not meet the requirement, NMA no meta-analysis conducted, NSRI Only includes non-randomised studies of interventions, RCT Only includes RCTs
  2. AMSTAR 2 DOMAINS: 1. PICO - “Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? 2. Protocol – “Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods was established prior to the conduct of the review, and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 3. Study design – Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 4. Search strategy – Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 5. Study selection – Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 6. Data extraction – Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 7. Excluded studies – Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 8. Included studies – Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 9. Risk of bias – 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. Funding sources – Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 11. Meta-analysis – If a meta-analysis was justified did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? 12. Impact risk of bias – 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. Discussing risk of bias – Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? 14. Heterogeneity – Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 15. Publication bias – 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 results of the review? 16. Conflicts of interest – Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?
Back to article page

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us