Rating of the quality of the systematic reviews according to AMSTAR 2
| First author | Research question and inclusion criteria | Review methods established prior to the conduct | Selection of study design explained* | Literature strategy | Study selection in duplicate | Data extraction in duplicate | List of excluded studies | Studies described in adequate detail | Risk of bias of individual studies | Source of funding for the studies included | Risk of bias of studies taken into account | Conflict of interest reported | Overall rating‡ |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 13† | 16 | ||
| Veenof 200626 | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Critically low |
| Thorborg 201024 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Critically low |
| Lodhia20 | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | N | Y | Critically low |
| Tijessen 201125 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Moderate |
| Thorborg13 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Moderate |
| d’Entremont17 | Y | N | N | PY | Y | Y | N | Y | N | N | N | Y | Critically low |
Note: Items 11, 12, 14 and 15 were not applicable (see explanation in the text).
*Being systematic reviews of studies on psychometric properties, the design explanation has been interpreted as referring to methodological papers specifically addressing psychometric attributes.
†The risk of bias assessment for methodological papers was considered the use of established criteria such as the COSMIN checklist.
‡ **, in calculating the ratings, some items (2, 7, 10) were arbitraryconsidered not critical (i.e. substantial bias) in the context of the present review
AMSTAR 2, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; COSMIN, Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; N, no; PY, partially yes; Y, yes.