Skip to main content

Table 5 Quality assessment of the included reviews using the AMSTAR Checklist

From: Behavioral determinants of physical activity across the life course: a “DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review

Author, Date

(Type of review) [Ref]

Was an ‘a priori’ design provided?

Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?

Was a comprehensive literature search performed?

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

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

Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?

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

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

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

Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?

Was the conflict of interest included?

Sum quality scorea

Quality of the reviewb

Babakus WS, 2012

(SLR) [24]

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

6

Moderate

Barnett I, 2012

(SLR) [25]

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

C.A.

No

7

Moderate

Craggs C, 2011

(SLR) [34]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

N.A.

No

Yes

6

Moderate

De Craemer M, 2012

(SLR) [26]

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

N.A.

N.A.

No

Yes

4

Moderate

Engberg E, 2012

(SLR) [12]

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

4

Moderate

Kaczynski AT, 2008

(SLR) [13]

No

No

C.A.

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

N.A.

No

Yes

3

Weak

Koeneman MA, 2011

(SLR) [27]

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

C.A.

Yes

Yes

7

Moderate

Larouche R, 2014

(SLR) [15]

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

6

Moderate

Lee MC, 2008

(SLR) [28]

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

4

Moderate

Marshall SJ, 2004

(MA) [14]

Yes

Yes

Yes

C.A.

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

6

Moderate

Pearson N, 2014

(MA) [29]

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

9

Strong

Ridgers ND, 2012

(SLR) [33]

Yes

C.A.

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

Yes

4

Moderate

Schoeppe S, 2013

(SLR) [16]

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

N.A.

No

No

5

Moderate

Stanley RM, 2012

(SLR) [30]

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

N.A.

No

Yes

4

Moderate

Tzormpatzakis N, 2007

(SLR) [31]

No

C.A.

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

C.A.

N.A.

No

No

2

Weak

Uijtdewillingen L, 2014

(SLR) [35]

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

N.A.

N.A.

Yes

7

Moderate

van der Horst K, 2007

(SLR) [32]

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

N.A.

N.A.

No

No

3

Weak

  1. Notes:
  2. C.A. can’t answer, N.A. not applicable
  3. a0 when the criteria was not applicable for the included review; 1 when the criteria was applicable for the included review
  4. bWeak (score ranging from 0 to 3); Moderate (score ranging from 4 to 7); Strong (score ranging from 8 to 11)