Skip to main content

Table 5 AMSTAR-quality rating for aggregated literature due to AMSTAR-2 criteria

From: Systematic review on diabetes mellitus and dental implants: an update

Study (first author/year) (1) A priori planning/definition? (2) Was the study selection and data extraction carried out by two independent persons? (3) Systematic literature search (4) Has grey literature been taken into account? (5) References given and electronicall available? (6) Study characteristics given? (7) Risk of bias assessment? (8) Was the risk of bias taken into account for interpretation in the review article? (9) Adequate statistics? Pooled results? Heterogenity tests? (10) Have publication bias/dissemination bias been addressed? Have at least ten primary studies been included? (11) Have conflicts of interest been addressed? AMSTAR-Rating AMSTAR-Quality (8–11 = high, 4–7 = medium; 0–3 = low)
Naujokat et al. (2016) [8] y y y n y y y y n y y 9 High
Jiang et al. (2021) [50] y u y n y y y y y y y 9 High
Moraschini et al. (2016) [51] y y y y y y y y y y y 11 High
Schimmel et al. (2018) [52] y y y u y y y y y y y 10 High
Singh et al. (2019) [53] y u y n y y n n n y y 6 Medium
Ting et al. (2018) [54] y y y u y y y y u y y 9 High
Souto-Maior et al. (2019) [55] y y y u y y y y n n y 8 High
De Oliveira-Neto et al. (2019) [56] y u y y y y y y y n y 9 High
Shi et al. (2016) [57] y y y n y y y u y n y 8 High
Shang et al. (2021) [58] y y y n y y y y y n y 9 High
Lagunov et al. (2019) [59] y y y n y y y y y n n 8 High
Dreyer et al. (2018) [60] y y y n y n y y y n** y 8 High
Monje et al. (2017) [61] y y y y y y y u y y y 10 High
Turri et al. (2016) [62] y u* y n y y y u u n y 6 Medium
Meza Mauricio et al. (2019) [63] y y y n y y y n n y y 8 High
Guobis et al. (2016) [64] y y y n y y y y n n** n 7 High
  1. y yes, n no, u unclear
  2. *Data extraction: yes; study selection: unclear; **less than ten studies regarded diabetes mellitus