Table 1

Rating of the quality of the systematic reviews according to AMSTAR 2

First authorResearch question and inclusion criteriaReview methods established prior to the conductSelection of study design explained*Literature strategyStudy selection in duplicateData extraction in duplicateList of excluded studiesStudies described in adequate detailRisk of bias of individual studiesSource of funding for the studies includedRisk of bias of studies taken into accountConflict of interest reportedOverall rating‡
Veenof 200626 YNYNYYNYNNNYCritically low
Thorborg 201024 YNYYYYNYNNNYCritically low
Lodhia20 YNYNYYYNNNNYCritically low
Tijessen 201125 YNYYYYNYYNYYModerate
Thorborg13 YYYYYYNYYNYYModerate
d’Entremont17 YNNPYYYNYNNNYCritically 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.