Effectiveness and Safety of Herbal Medicine for Atopic Dermatitis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Table 2

Methodological quality assessment of the included reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool.

Included studies

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

Q11

Q12

Q13

Q14

Q15

Q16

Overall quality

Gong [21]

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Critically low

Gu et al. [22]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Tan et al. [7]

Yes

No

Yes

Partial yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Critically low

Yang et al. [23]

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Partial yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Critically low

Ma et al. [24]

Yes

No

Yes

Partial yes

No

Yes

No

Partial yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Critically low

Shi et al. [25]

Yes

No

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Critically low

Liu et al. [26]

Yes

No

Yes

Partial yes

No

No

No

Partial yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Critically low

Liu et al. [27]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Low

Wang et al. [28]

Yes

No

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Yes

No

Partial yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Critically low

Q1: did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? Q2: 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? Q3: did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? Q4: did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? Q5: did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? Q6: did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? Q7: did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? Q8: did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? Q9: did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? Q10: did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? Q11: if meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? Q12: 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? Q13: did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? Q14: did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? Q15: 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? Q16: did the review authors report any potential sources of conflicts of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?