(Continued)
(e.g. CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE). Key words and/ or MeSH terms must be stated, and where feasible, the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supple- mented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialised registers or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found
3.4 Were MeSH terms stated? 3.5 Was the search strategy pro- vided or available on request? 3.
6 Were searches supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialised registers or experts in the par- ticular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found?
searching the references of in- cluded studies
4. Was the status of publica- tion (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The overview authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The overview authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, lan- guage, etc
4.1 Were studies searched for and included regardless of their publication type?
4.2 Were papers included re- gardless of language of publica- tion?
(no change)
Clarification note: If there is no specific statement about lan- guage and/or publication type, then should enter ’unclear’
’Yes’ on mAMSTAR 4.1 and 4. 2
If either 4.1 or 4.2 is ’unclear, ’ then the AMSTAR must also be rated as ’unclear’
5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded stud- ies should be provided
5.1 Was there a list of included studies?
5.2 Was there a list of excluded studies?
5.3 Was there a flow diagram?
(no change) ’Yes’ on mAMSTAR 5.1 and 5. 2
6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The range of characteristics in all the studies analysed (e.g. age, race, sex, rel- evant socioeconomic data, dis- ease status, duration, severity, other diseases) should be re- ported
6.1 Were details provided on the participants of included studies (including age, gender, severity of stroke, time since stroke)?
6.2 Were details provided on the interventions of included studies?
6.3 Were details provided on the outcomes reported by in- cluded studies?
(no change)
Clarification notes, for ’yes’: 6.1 Need the following to be provided: age, time since stroke, stroke severity (at baseline) 6.2 Need type of intervention + details of dose, including du- ration, frequency and length of intervention period
6.3 Need list of outcomes that studies included
’Yes’ on AMSTAR 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3
7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? ’A priori’
7.1 Was the scientific quality of included studies assessed? 7.2 Was this done by at least 2
(no change)
Clarification note, for ’yes’: 7.1 Need the following to be
’Yes’ on mAMSTAR 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3
(Continued)
methods of assessment should be provided (e.g. for effective- ness studies if the author(s) chose to include only random- ized, double-blind, placebo- controlled studies or allocation concealment as inclusion crite- ria); for other types of studies, alternative items will be relevant
independent reviewers? 7.3 Was the scientific quality of studies documented?
assessed: randomisation; alloca- tion concealment; blinding of outcome assessor
7.3 The 3 criteria listed above need to be documented for each study
8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used ap- propriately in formulating con- clusions? The results of the methodological rigour and sci- entific quality should be con- sidered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations
8.1 Were the results of scientific quality considered in the anal- ysis and conclusions of the re- view?
8.2 Were the results of method- ological rigour considered in the analysis and conclusions of the review?
8.1 Were the results of method- ological rigour of the included studies considered in the analy- sis of the review?
8.2 Were the results of the sci- entific quality of the included studies considered in the con- clusions and/or recommenda- tions of the review?
’Yes’ on mAMSTAR 8.1 and 8. 2
9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of stud- ies appropriate? For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were com- binable, to assess their homo- geneity (i.e. Chi2 test for ho- mogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists, a random-effects model should be used and/or the clin- ical appropriateness of combin- ing should be taken into con- sideration (i.e. Is it sensible to combine?)
9.1 Were the methods used to combine the findings of stud- ies clearly described and/or ref- erenced to appropriate text? 9.2 If results are pooled, is a test of heterogeneity reported? 9.3 Have the authors stated a definition of statistical hetero- geneity?
9.4 If heterogeneity is present or suspected, has a random-effects model been used?
(no change) If there is no pooling of data, then ’not applicable’ should be entered into the AMSTAR If ’yes’ on mAMSTAR 9.1 and 9.4, then ’yes’ on AMSTAR If ’yes’ on 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 AND there is no heterogeneity, then enter ’N/A’ for 9.4. In this case, enter ’yes’ for the AMSTAR
10. Was the likelihood of pub- lication bias assessed? An as- sessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g. funnel plot, other available tests) and/ or statistical tests (e.g. Egger re- gression test)
10.1 Was the likelihood of pub- lication bias considered?
10.1 Was the likelihood of pub- lication bias assessed?
Response as mAMSTAR
11. Was the conflict of interest stated? Potential sources of sup- port should be clearly acknowl- edged in both the systematic re- view and the included studies
11.1 Was there a conflict of in- terest statement?
11.2 Were sources of support acknowledged?
11.1 Was there a conflict of in- terest statement?
11.2 Was the review free of any conflicts of interest?
Note: Agreed that it was im- portant to record the presence of any conflict of interest (in- cluding those associated with
161