Skip to main content

Table 1 Methodological quality assessment of included systematic reviews using AMSTAR

From: Interventions to improve physical activity among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups: an umbrella review

Author (Year) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11a Rating
Bock et al. 2014 [31] 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 NA 1 0 1 4
Bull et al. 2014 [13] 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Chaudhary & Kreiger 2007 [22] 0 0 0 0 0 1 NA NA NA 0 0 1
Cleland et al. 2012 [14] 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 5
Cleland et al. 2013 [28] 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Everson-Hock et al. 2013 [23] 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 5
Kader et al. 2015 [30] 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 5
Kornet-van der Aa et al. 2017 [20] 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 8
Laws et al. 2014 [15] 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 7
Lehne & Bolte 2017 [9] 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 7
Magnee et al. 2013 [24] 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 4
Olstad et al. 2016 [25] 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 8
Olstad et al. 2017 [17] 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 8
Taylor et al. 1998 [21] 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
van Sluijs et al. 2007 [26] 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 6
Walton-Moss et al. 2014 [27] 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3
Wijtzes et al. 2017 [29] 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 5
  1. AMSTAR items were scored as “Yes” (1), “No” (0), “Can’t Answer” or “Not Applicable” (NA). AMSTAR comprises the following items:
  2. 1. ‘a priori’ design provided;
  3. 2. duplicate study selection/data extraction;
  4. 3. comprehensive literature search;
  5. 4. status of publication as inclusion criteria (i.e., grey or unpublished literature);
  6. 5. list of studies included/excluded provided;
  7. 6. characteristics of included studies documented;
  8. 7. scientific quality assessed and documented;
  9. 8. appropriate formulation of conclusions (based on methodological rigor and scientific quality of the studies);
  10. 9. appropriate methods of combining studies (homogeneity test, effect model used and sensitivity analysis);
  11. 10. assessment of publication bias (graphic and/or statistical test); and
  12. 11. conflict of interest statement*’
  13. aCriterion modified to solely asses conflict of interest/source of funding statement of the review