Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodological quality assessment of included studies according to the AMSTAR tool

From: Effectiveness of feeding supplementation in preterm infants: an overview of systematic reviews

Study A B C D E F G H I J K Total
Pammi et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Howlett et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10
Walsh et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10
Chi et al. 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Armannia et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10
Amissah et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 9
Amissah et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10
Amissah et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 9
Yang et al. 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 8
Harding et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 8
Shah et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10
Aceti et al. 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Moe-Byrne et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Moon et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10
AlFaleh et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10
Young et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10
Verner et al. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 10
  1. 1 = Yes. 0 = No/ Unclear/ Not applicable. A. Was an “a priori” design provided? B. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? C. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? D. Was the status of publication (i.e., grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? E. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? F. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? G. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? H. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? I. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? J. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? K. Were potential conflicts of interest included?