AMSTAR - Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 16/12/21 4:17 p. m.
Emilio Logout My Account
Home About Us Publications Checklist FAQs Contact Us
AMSTAR 2 Results
Printer Friendly Version
Article Name: Tasa de supervivencia de los implantes dentales de óxido de circonio. Una r
Tasa de supervivencia de los implantes dentales de óxido de circonio.
Una r is a High quality review
1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the Yes
components of PICO? Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review Partial
methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report YesYesYesYesYesYesYes
justify any significant deviations from the protocol?
3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for Yes
inclusion in the review? Yes
4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? Partial Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? Yes
Yes
6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? Yes
Yes
https://amstar.ca/mascripts/Calc_Checklist.php Página 1 de 3
AMSTAR - Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 16/12/21 4:17 p. m.
7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the Yes
exclusions? Yes
Yes
8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of
bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?
RCT Yes
NRSI
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies No
included in the review?
11. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate
methods for statistical combination of results?
RCT Yes
NRSI
Yes
Yes
Yes
12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potentialYes
impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other
evidence synthesis?
13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when Yes
interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? Yes
14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and Yes
discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? Yes
15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out Yes
an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its
https://amstar.ca/mascripts/Calc_Checklist.php Página 2 de 3
AMSTAR - Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 16/12/21 4:17 p. m.
likely impact on the results of the review? Yes
16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, Yes
including any funding they received for conducting the review? Yes
To cite this tool: Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V,
Kristjansson E, Henry DA. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or
non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008.
<< Back
Copyright © 2021 AMSTAR All Rights Reserved |
https://amstar.ca/mascripts/Calc_Checklist.php Página 3 de 3
