An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Using Chinese Medicine to Treat Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Table 3

AMSTAR2 quality evaluation results (items 1–16).

Included systematic reviews

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Credibility

Yan Lun et al. 2015 [17]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

PY

N

N

Y

NP

N

Y

Y

N

Very low

Xiao Chao 2016 [18]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Very low

Li Nan et al. 2017 [19]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

PY

N

N

N

NP

N

N

NP

N

Very low

Lu RuLing et al. 2018 [20]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

PY

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Y

N

Very low

Xu LiFang et al. 2018 [21]

Y

N

N

Y

N

N

N

PY

Y

N

N

N

N

Y

Y

N

Very low

Xu Huayun et al. 2018 [22]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Very low

Huang Wenfang et al. 2018 [23]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Very low

Liu Ying et al. 2019 [24]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

PY

Y

N

Y

NP

NP

Y

N

N

Very low

Yuan BoChao 2019 [25]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

NP

Y

Y

N

N

N

Very low

Ji Lin 2019 [26]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Very low

Xie Peng Peng et al. 2019 [27]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Very low

ZhongYizheng et al. 2019 [28]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Very low

Dong YuFang 2020 [29]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Very low

Li Nan et al. 2020 [30]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

Y

NP

N

Y

NP

N

Very low

Du Xiu et al. 2020 [31]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

N

NP

N

N

Y

N

Very low

Lin BeiBei 2020 [32]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

N

NP

Y

N

Y

N

Very low

Chen JinMing et al. 2020 [33]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

Y

NP

N

Y

NP

N

Very low

Huang Ting et al. 2020 [34]

Y

N

N

Y

Y

Y

N

PY

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

N

N

Very low

Percentage of reports

100

0

0

100

94

67

0

100

89

0

39

50

56

44

67

0

Note. Item 1: did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? Item 2: did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to conducting the review, and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? Item 3: did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? Item 4: did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? Item 5: did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? Item 6: did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? Item 7: did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? Item 8: did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? Item 9: did the review authors use a satisfactory technique to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? Item 10: did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? Item 11: if meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? Item 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? Item 13: did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? Item 14: did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? Item 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? Item 16: did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received to conduct the review? Y = Yes; PY = Partially yes; N = No; NP = no meta-analysis performed.