Profiling Inflammatory Biomarkers following Curcumin Supplementation: An Umbrella Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Table 2

Results of assessing the methodological quality of meta-analysis.

Citation (first author et al., year)

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q5

Q6

Q7

Q8

Q9

Q10

Q11

Q12

Q13

Q14

Q15

Q16

Quality assessment

Ebrahimzadeh et al. 2021[24]

No

Yes

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Moderate

Ashtary-Larky et al. 2021[25]

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Gorabi et al. 2021[26]

No

Yes

Yes

Partial yes

No

Yes

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Moderate

Sahebkar et al. 2014 [27]

No

Yes

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Moderate

Sahebkar et al. 2016 [28]

No

Partial yes

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Moderate

Tabrizi et al. 2018 [29]

No

Yes

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

High

Abdelazeem et al. 2021[30]

No

Yes

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Moderate

White et al. 2019 [31]

No

Yes

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Moderate

Ferguson et al. 2020 [32]

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

High

Derosa et al. 2016 [33]

No

Partial yes

Yes

Partial yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Moderate

(1) Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? (2) 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? (3) Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? (4) Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? (5) Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? (6) Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? (7) Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? (8) Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? (9) 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) Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? (11) If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? (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? (13) Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? (14) Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? (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? (16) Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflicts of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? Each question was answered with “yes,” “partial yes” or “no.” When no meta-analysis was done, question 11, 12, and 15 were answered with “no meta-analysis conducted.”