Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Assessment of the methodological quality using R-AMSTAR

From: The management strategies of cancer-associated anorexia: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews

Study R-AMSTAR items Score
1. “A priori” design provided? 2. Duplicate study selection and data extraction? 3. Comprehen-sive literature search? 4. Status of publication as an inclusion criterion? 5. List of studies (included and excluded)? 6. Characteris-tics of the included studies? 7. Quality of included studies assessed and documented? 8. Scientific quality used appropriately in formulating conclusions? 9. Appropriate methods used to combine the findings of studies? 10. Likelihood of publication bias assessed? 11. Conflict of interest stated?
Maltoni et al., 2001 [14] 4 4 4 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 24
Pascual ea. al,2004 [15] 3 3 3 2 1 4 2 1 4 1 2 26
Yavuzsen et al., 2005 [6] 3 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2 18
Berenstein & Ortiz, 2005 [16] 3 4 4 4 1 4 2 1 4 1 1 29
Dewey et al., 2007 [17] 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 1 4 1 3 34a
Lesniak et al., 2008 [18] 3 3 4 2 1 4 3 1 4 2 2 29
Baldwin et al., 2012 [19] 3 4 3 1 2 4 2 1 4 4 4 32 a
Reid et al., 2012 [20] 4 4 4 3 4 4 2 1 4 4 2 36 a
Ruiz et al., 2013 [21] 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 41 a
Payne et al., 2013 [22] 3 4 4 1 3 4 2 1 2 1 3 28
Reid et al., 2013 [23] 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 1 3 2 3 28
Solheim et al., 2013 [24] 3 4 2 2 3 4 2 1 3 1 2 27
Miller et al., 2014 [25] 3 4 1 1 2 4 2 1 2 1 2 23
Chung et al., 2016 [26] 4 2 3 4 3 4 2 1 4 4 3 34 a
Lau et al., 2016 [27] 4 3 3 4 3 4 2 1 4 4 3 35 a
Bai et al., 2017 [28] 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 1 4 4 3 32 a
Mochamat et al., 2017 [29] 3 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 1 2 31 a
Li et al., 2017 [30] 3 3 2 4 3 1 2 1 4 1 1 25
Mean 3.33 3.50 2.89 2.61 2.39 3.83 2.06 1.22 3.28 2.11 2.33 29.56
SD 0.49 0.71 1.13 1.24 1.04 0.71 0.64 0.73 1.07 1.41 0.84 5.47
  1. aR-AMSTAR score ≥ 31 points means a high methodological quality