Conducting high-quality overviews of reviews (OoR) is time-consuming. Because the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) varies, it is necessary to critically appraise SRs when conducting an OoR. A well-established appraisal tool is A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, which takes about 15-32 min per application. To save time, we developed two fast-and-frugal decision trees (FFTs) for assessing the methodological quality of SR for OoR either during the full-text screening stage (Screening FFT) or to the resulting pool of SRs (Rapid Appraisal FFT). To build a data set for developing the FFT, we identified published AMSTAR 2 appraisals. Overall confidence ratings of the AMSTAR 2 were used as a criterion and the 16 items as cues. One thousand five hundred and nineteen appraisals were obtained from 24 publications and divided into training and test data sets. The resulting Screening FFT consists of three items and correctly identifies all non-critically low-quality SRs (sensitivity of 100%), but has a positive predictive value of 59%. The three-item Rapid Appraisal FFT correctly identifies 80% of the high-quality SRs and correctly identifies 97% of the low-quality SRs, resulting in an accuracy of 95%. The FFTs require about 10% of the 16 AMSTAR 2 items. The Screening FFT may be applied during full-text screening to exclude SRs with critically low quality. The Rapid Appraisal FFT may be applied to the final SR pool to identify SR that might be of high methodological quality.

The objective of this umbrella review was to investigate comprehensive and synthesized evidence of the association between ambient air pollution and obesity based on the current systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Related studies from databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, published before July 16, 2023, were considered in the analysis. All selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The risk of bias and the methodological quality were evaluated using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The protocol for this umbrella review was documented in PROSPERO with the registration number: CRD42023450191. This umbrella review identified 7 studies, including 5 meta-analyses and 2 systematic reviews, to assess the impacts of air pollutants on obesity. Commonly examined air pollutants included PM1, PM2.5, PM10, NO2, SO2, O3. Most of the included studies presented that air pollution exposure was positively associated with the increased risk of obesity. The impact of air pollution on obesity varied by different ambient air pollutants. This study provided compelling evidence that exposure to air pollution had a positive association with the risk of obesity. These findings further indicate the importance of strengthening air pollution prevention and control. Future studies should elucidate the possible mechanisms and pathways linking air pollution to obesity.

Background: To evaluate the current evidence on clear aligners and root resorption using 3D and/or combined 2D and 3D methods from available systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to determine the relationship between root resorption and clear aligners using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of systematic reviews investigating aligners and root resorption, published up until 31 December 2022, was conducted. The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO, and LILACS. There were no language restrictions. The inclusion criteria were restricted to studies focusing on root resorption utilizing either 3D methods exclusively or a combination of 2D and 3D techniques. Data were screened and analyzed for quality using the \"A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2)\" tool. Data extraction was conducted independently by two authors. The gathered information was categorized and synthesized narratively based on the primary findings elucidated within the reviews. Results: Out of a total of 1221 potentially eligible studies initially identified, 4 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria following the exclusion of irrelevant studies. Among these, two systematic reviews (50%) were classified as low-quality, while the remaining two (50%) were deemed to be of critically low quality. Conclusions: Based on the findings of four systematic reviews, the root resorption rate was lower with the use of clear aligners than with fixed aligners. It is advisable to approach the interpretation of this conclusion with caution, as the quality of the available evidence is assessed to be very low. Higher quality systematic reviews are needed to substantiate this conclusion.

Systematic reviews (SRs) have an important role in the healthcare decision-making practice. Assessing the overall confidence in the results of SRs using quality assessment tools, such as \"A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2\" (AMSTAR 2), is crucial since not all SRs are conducted using the most rigorous methods. In this article, we introduce a free, open-source R package called \"amstar2Vis\" (https://github.com/bougioukas/amstar2Vis) that provides easy-to-use functions for presenting the critical appraisal of SRs, based on the items of AMSTAR 2 checklist. An illustrative example is outlined, describing the steps involved in creating a detailed table with the item ratings and the overall confidence ratings, generating a stacked bar plot that shows the distribution of ratings as percentages of SRs for each AMSTAR 2 item, and creating a \"ggplot2\" graph that shows the distribution of overall confidence ratings (\"Critically Low,\" \"Low,\" \"Moderate,\" or \"High\"). We expect \"amstar2Vis\" to be useful for overview authors and methodologists who assess the quality of SRs with AMSTAR 2 checklist and facilitate the production of pertinent publication-ready tables and figures. Future research and applications could further investigate the functionality or potential improvements of our package.

Several systematic reviews have addressed digital technology use for treatment and monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
This study aimed to assess if systematic reviews considered the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of such systematic reviews. The objectives of this overview were to (1) describe the definitions of sex or gender used in reviews; (2) determine whether the consideration of sex, gender, or age was planned in reviews; (3) determine whether sex, gender, or age was reported in review results; (4) determine whether sex, gender, or age was incorporated in implications for clinical practice in reviews; and (5) create an evidence map for development of individualized clinical recommendations for COPD based on sex, gender, or age diversity.
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, and the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews were searched to June 2022. Inclusion was based on the PICOS framework: (1) population (COPD), (2) intervention (any digital technology), (3) comparison (any), (4) outcome (any), and (5) study type (systematic review). Studies were independently selected by 2 authors based on title and abstract and full-text screening. Data were extracted by 1 author and checked by another author. Data items included systematic review characteristics; PICOS criteria; and variables related to sex, gender, or age. Systematic reviews were appraised using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics.
Of 1439 records, 30 systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2022 were included in this overview. The confidence in the results of 25 of the 30 (83%) reviews was critically low according to AMSTAR 2. The reviews focused on user outcomes that potentially depend on sex, gender, or age, such as efficacy or effectiveness (25/30, 83%) and acceptance, satisfaction, or adherence (3/30, 10%) to digital technologies for COPD. Reviews reported sex or gender (19/30 systematic reviews) or age (25/30 systematic reviews) among primary study characteristics. However, only 1 of 30 reviews included age in a subgroup analysis, and 3 of 30 reviews identified the effects of sex, gender, or age as evidence gaps.
This overview shows that the effects of sex, gender, or age were rarely considered in 30 systematic reviews of digital technologies for COPD treatment and monitoring. Furthermore, systematic reviews did not incorporate sex, gender, nor age in their implications for clinical practice. We recommend that future systematic reviews should (1) evaluate the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD and (2) better adhere to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in review results.
PROSPERO CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924.
RR2-10.2196/40538.

Aims: To evaluate the reliability of the methodological quality and outcome measures of systematic reviews (SRs)/metaanalyses (MAs) of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). Methods: We searched and retrieved SRs and MAs on the application of ADM for DFU from PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and VIP databases. We employed AMSTAR 2 to assess methodological quality, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to grade, and the strength of evidence of included SRs/MAs. We excluded the overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and conducted a re-MA of the primary RCTs. Results: A total of 7 SRs/MAs were included. Results from the AMSTAR 2 evaluation revealed a low overall quality; the GRADE system showed that the evidence was of moderate to very low quality. Our re-MA showed that ADM was superior to standard of care (SOC), with regards to complete wound healing rate at 12 weeks (RR = 1.74, 95% CI:1.34-2.25, P < .0001), complete wound healing rate at 16 weeks (RR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.26-1.77, P ＜ .00001); healing time (MD = -2.06, 95% CI: -2.57 to -1.54, P < .00001) and adverse events (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.49-0.80, P = .0002). However, a consensus has not yet been reached between ADM and SOC groups with regard to outcome indicators of the reduction of ulcer area and quality of life; and subgroup analyses showed no statistically significant differences between the xenograft ADM and SOC groups (RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.95-1.93, P = .09) at 12 weeks. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that ADM is more effective than the standard of care in the treatment of DFU, particularly for full-thickness, noninfected, and nonischemic foot ulcers, but with low evidence quality. Therefore, the results of this overview should be interpreted dialectically and prudently, and the role of ADM in DFU needs further exploration.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the report quality, methodological quality and evidence quality of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of acupuncture for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET).
METHODS: The SRs/MAs of acupuncture for IVF-ET were searched electronically from databases of CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, from inception of each database to September 27th, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and extracted the data. Using PRISMA statement, the AMSTAR 2 scale and the GRADE system, the report quality, methodological quality and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs were assessed.
RESULTS: A total of 28 SRs/MAs were included, with PRISMA scores ranging from 8.5 points to 27 points. The problems of report quality focused on protocol and registration, retrieval, risk of bias in studies, additional analysis, limitations and funding. The methodological quality of included studies was generally low, reflecting on items 2, 3, 7, 10, 12 and 16. A total of 85 outcome indexes were included in the GRADE system for evidence grade evaluation. Most of the evidences were low or very low in quality. The reasons for the downgrade were related to study limitations, inconsistency, imprecision and publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture therapy improves the outcomes of IVF-ET, but the methodological quality and evidence quality of related SRs/MAs are low. It is recommended to conduct more high-quality studies in the future to provide more reliable evidences.
目的: 对针灸辅助体外受精胚胎移植（IVF-ET）的系统评价（SR）/Meta分析（MA）进行报告质量、方法学质量和证据质量的再评价。方法: 计算机检索中国期刊全文数据库（CNKI）、万方数据知识服务平台（Wanfang）、维普中文期刊服务平台（VIP）、中国生物医学文献数据库（SinoMed）、PubMed、EMbase、Cochrane Library中针灸辅助IVF-ET的SR/MA。检索时限均为建库至2022年9月27日。由2名研究员独立筛选文献、提取资料后，采用PRISMA声明、AMSTAR 2量表和GRADE系统分别评价纳入SR/MA的报告质量、方法学质量和证据质量。结果: 共纳入28篇SR/MA，PRISMA评分在8.5～27分。报告质量问题主要表现在方案和注册、检索、研究偏倚、其他分析、局限性、资金支持等方面。纳入研究的方法学质量整体偏低，问题主要集中在条目2、3、7、10、12、16。共85个结局指标纳入GRADE系统进行证据等级评价，大部分证据质量为低或极低，降级的原因主要与研究的局限性、不一致性、不精确性和发表偏倚有关。结论: 针灸辅助IVF-ET治疗可以改善不孕患者的妊娠结局，但相关SR/MA的方法学质量和证据质量均较低，建议今后开展更多高质量的研究以提供更可靠的循证依据。.

BACKGROUND: Indocyanine green (ICG) is an injectable fluorochrome that has recently gained popularity as a means of assisting intraoperative visualization during laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been published. We conducted a meta-review to synthesize the findings of these studies.
METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses coping with the uses of ICG in abdominal operations, including Metabolic Bariatric Surgery, Cholecystectomy, Colorectal, Esophageal, Gastric, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary, Obstetrics and Gynecology (OG), Pediatric Surgery, Surgical Oncology, Urology, (abdominal) Vascular Surgery, Adrenal and Splenic Surgery, and Interdisciplinary tasks, until September 2023. We submitted the retrieved meta-analyses to qualitative analysis based on the AMSTAR 2 instrument.
RESULTS: We identified 116 studies, 41 systematic reviews (SRs) and 75 meta-analyses (MAs), spanning 2013-2023. The most thoroughly investigated (sub)specialties were Colorectal (6 SRs, 25 MAs), OG (9 SRs, 15 MAs), and HPB (4 SRs, 12 MAs). Interestingly, there was high heterogeneity regarding the administered ICG doses, routes, and timing. The use of ICG offered a clear benefit regarding anastomotic leak prevention, particularly after colorectal and esophageal surgery. There was no clear benefit regarding sentinel node detection after OG. According to the AMSTAR 2 tool, most meta-analyses ranked as \"critically low\" (34.7%) or \"low\" (58.7%) quality. There were only five meta-analyses (6.7%) that qualified as \"moderate\" quality, whereas there were no \"high\" quality reviews.
CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the abundance of pertinent literature and reviews, surgeons should be cautious when interpreting their results on ICG use in abdominal surgery. Future reviews should focus on ensuring methodological vigor; establishing clear protocols of ICG dose, route of administration, and timing; and improving reporting quality. Other sources of data (e.g., registries) and novel methods of data analysis (e.g., machine learning) might also contribute to an enhanced role of ICG as a decision-making tool in surgery.

This study aimed to assess the methods and outcomes of The Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 appraisals in overviews of reviews (overviews) of interventions in the cardiovascular field and identify factors that are associated with these outcomes. MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until November 2022. Eligible were overviews of cardiovascular interventions, analyzing systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Extracted data included characteristics of overviews and SRs and AMSTAR 2 appraisal methods and outcomes. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to explore potential associations between the characteristics of SRs and extracted AMSTAR 2 overall ratings (\"High-Moderate\" vs. \"Low-Critically low\"). The original results on individual AMSTAR 2 items were entered into the official AMSTAR 2 online tool and the recalculated overall confidence ratings were compared to those provided in overviews. All 34 overviews identified were published between 2019 and 2022. Rating of overall confidence following the algorithm suggested by AMSTAR 2 developers was noted in 74% of overviews. The 679 unique included SRs were mainly of \"Critically low\" (53%) or \"Low\" (18.7%) confidence and underperformed in items 2 (Protocol, no = 65.2%) and 7 (List of excluded studies, no = 84%). The following characteristics of SRs were significantly associated with higher overall ratings: Cochrane origin, pharmacological interventions, including exclusively RCTs, citation of methodological and reporting guidelines, protocol, absence of funding and publication after AMSTAR 2 release. Generally, overviews\' authors tended to deviate from the original rating scheme and ascribe higher ratings to SRs compared to the official AMSTAR 2 online tool. Most SRs included in overviews of cardiovascular interventions have critically low or low confidence in their results. Overviews\' authors should be more transparent about the methods used to derive the overall confidence in SRs.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the methodological quality and characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) that reported they were conducted in line with the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews).
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional meta-research study. We searched MEDLINE and Embase. We included full reports of SRs reporting the study was conducted, prepared, or designed in line with the AMSTAR 2. Eligible SRs were those published from January 1, 2018, until May 3, 2022. We assessed the methodological quality of the included SRs using AMSTAR 2.
RESULTS: We included a total of 45 records. There were 43 SRs and 2 SR protocols. Among them, most were SRs of interventions that included primary studies on humans. More than half had a meta-analysis. According to our overall AMSTAR 2 assessments of included SRs, 35 SRs were of critically low confidence, 7 SRs were of low confidence, and one SR was of high confidence. There were no SRs of moderate confidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Even when authors indicate in their manuscripts that the SR was conducted/prepared/designed in line with the AMSTAR 2, it does not necessarily imply it is of high or even moderate confidence according to AMSTAR 2. A self-assessment with AMSTAR 2 could be required for submission and carefully checked by the editors/peer reviewers.