Skip to main content

Table 2 AMSTAR methodological quality assessment of PAMG systematic reviews

From: Process description and evaluation of Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines development

Item

Janssen [30]

Warburton [31]

Paterson [32]

Rhodes [33]

Latimer [34]

1. Was an "a priori" design provided?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?

Yes, but no strategy to resolve disagreements

Yes, but no info on how to resolve disagreements re: data extraction. (Screening, data abstraction)

Yes

Yes for search, but no mention of use of duplicate review/data checks for abstraction

Yes

3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?

Yes, search terms provided, but not exact search strategy

Yes, but only report search strategy for MEDLINE (table two)

Yes, but only report search strategy for MEDLINE

(table one)

Yes, search terms provided -- Appendix B, Medline only

Yes (Identification of papers, Appendix one)

4. Was the status of publication (i.e., grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?

No

No

No

No

Unclear

5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?

No, only included studies

No, only included studies

No, only included studies

Yes

(Appendix A)

No, only included studies

6. Were characteristics of included studies provided?

Yes

Yes (tables four-ten)

Yes

Yes (Table two, Appendix C)

Yes

(Tables two, five, seven)

7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?

Yes (methods, results)

Yes (methods)

Yes

(methods,

table five)

Yes

(Appendix D)

Yes

(Tables one, four, six)

8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?

Yes -- qualitative review appropriate

Yes -- qualitative review appropriate -- suggest stating explicitly

Yes -- qualitative review appropriate

Yes, qualitative review appropriate

Yes, qualitative review appropriate

10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?

No

No

No

No

No

11. Were potential conflicts of interest included?

Yes

Yes (Acknowledge-ments)

Yes

Yes (Competing interests)

Yes

  1. This table outlines the methodological quality assessment of each of the systematic reviews using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR) [43].