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 |