Gastroenterology Research and Practice / 2020 / Article / Tab 3 / Review Article
A Methodological and Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses about Chinese Medical Treatment for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Table 3 The results of AMSTAR 2 assessments.
Study Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Rank Yes [ Partial yes [ No [ Song [15 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 Very low 8 (50%) 1 (6.3%) 7 (43.8%) Yang [16 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Very low 11 (68.8%) 1 (6.3%) 4 (25%) Zhao [17 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Very low 9 (56.3%) 2 (12.5%) 5 (31.3%) Chen [18 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Very low 10 (62.5%) 1 (6.3%) 5 (31.3%) Sun [19 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Very low 8 (50%) 1 (6.3%) 7 (43.8%) Zhang [20 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Very low 11 (68.8%) 1 (6.3%) 4 (25%) Wang [21 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Low 11 (68.8%) 2 (12.5%) 3 (18.8%) Li [22 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Very low 8 (50%) 1 (6.3%) 7 (43.8%) Pei [23 ] 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Very low 10 (62.5%) 0 (0%) 6 (37.5%) Guo [24 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Very low 11 (68.8%) 1 (6.3%) 4 (25%) Ling [25 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Moderate 12 (75%) 2 (12.5%) 2 (12.5%) Zheng [26 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Low 12 (75%) 1 (6.3%) 3 (18.8%) Zheng [27 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Low 11 (68.8%) 2 (12.5%) 3 (18.8%) Ge [28 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Low 11 (68.8%) 1 (6.3%) 4 (25%) Zhu [29 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Low 10 (62.5%) 1 (6.3%) 5 (31.3%) Ghung [30 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Low 12 (75%) 2 (12.5%) 2 (12.5%) Chen [31 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Low 11 (68.8%) 2 (12.5%) 3 (18.8%) Chen [32 ] 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Very low 10 (62.5%) 0 (0%) 6 (37.5%) Dai [33 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Low 13 (81.3%) 2 (12.5%) 1 (6.3%) Li [34 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Low 10 (62.5%) 1 (6.3%) 5 (31.3%) Xie [35 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Low 9 (56.3%) 2 (12.5%) 5 (31.3%) Xiao [36 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Low 13 (81.3%) 1 (6.3%) 2 (12.5%) Zhu [37 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Low 13 (81.3%) 2 (12.5%) 1 (6.3%) Li [38 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Low 13 (81.3%) 2 (12.5%) 1 (6.3%) Xie [39 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Low 13 (81.3%) 2 (12.5%) 1 (6.3%) Fu [40 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Very low 8 (50%) 1 (6.3%) 7 (43.8%) Li [41 ] 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Very low 10 (62.5%) 0 (0%) 6 (37.5%) Song [42 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Very low 11 (68.8%) 1 (6.3%) 4 (25%) Wu [43 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Low 11 (68.8%) 2 (12.5%) 3 (18.8%) Xiao [44 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Low 10 (62.5%) 1 (6.3%) 5 (31.3%) Song [44 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 Low 11 (68.8%) 2 (12.5%) 3 (18.8%) Li [45 ] 1 0 1 0.5 0 1 0.5 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Low 9 (56.3%) 2 (12.5%) 5 (31.3%) Li [46 ] 1 0 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Moderate 13 (81.3%) 2 (12.5%) 1 (6.3%) Yes [ 33 (100%) 0 (0%) 33 (100%) 0 (0%) 12 (36.4%) 25 (75.8%) 0 (0%) 33 (100%) 29 (87.9%) 10 (30.3%) 33 (100%) 29 (87.9%) 29 (87.9%) 33 (100%) 29 (87.9%) 20 (60.6%) Partial yes [ — 0 (0%) — 30 (90.9%) — — 15 (45.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) — — — — — — — No [ 0 (0%) 33 (100%) 0 (0%) 3 (9.1%) 21 (63.6%) 8 (24.2%) 18 (54.5%) 0 (0%) 4 (12.1%) 23 (69.7%) 0 (0%) 4 (12.1%) 4 (12.1%) 0 (0%) 4 (12.1%) 13 (39.4%) — — — — — — — — 0 (0%) — — — — — — — @ [ — — — — — — — — 0 (0%) — — — — — — — # [ — — — — — — — — — — 0 (0%) — — — — — ¥ [ — — — — — — — — — — — 0 (0%) — — 0 (0%) —
Notes:
of study design;
selection in duplicate;
extraction in duplicate;
studies;
studies;
of bias;
data;
impact of RoB;
for RoB;
Q2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 are the critical domains;
