Table 3 Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR measurement tool
From: Does Indigenous health research have impact? A systematic review of reviews
First author | 1.‘A priori’ design | 2. Study selection and extraction | 3. Literature search | 4. Grey literature | 5. List of studies | 6. Study characteristics | 7. Quality assessment | 8. Methodological rigour | 9. Pooled results | 10. Publication bias | 11. Conflict of interest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
McDonald E, Bailie R, Brewster D and Morris P [33] | ○ | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ● |
Arnold M, Moore SP, Hassler S, Ellison-Loschmann L, Forman D and Bray F [55] | ○ | ○ | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ○ | ● | ○ | ○ | ● |
Azzopardi PS, Kennedy EC, Patton GC, Power R, Roseby RD, Sawyer SM and Brown AD [56] | ○ | ○ | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ○ | ● |
McCalman J, Tsey K, Wenitong M, Wilson A, McEwan A, James YC and Whiteside M [28] | ○ | ○ | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ○ | ○ | ● | ◐ | ● |
Gould GS, Munn J, Watters T, McEwen A and Clough AR [22] | ○ | ● | ◐ | ○ | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ● |
Shah PS, Zao J, Al-Wassia H and Shah V [24] | ○ | ◐ | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ● |
Chang AB, Taylor B, Masters IB, Laifoo Y and Brown Alexander DH [43] | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ● |
McCalman J, Tsey K, Bainbridge R, Rowley K, Percival N, O’Donoghue L, Brands J, Whiteside M and Judd J [23] | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ◐ | ● |
Clifford AC, Doran CM and Tsey K [26] | ○ | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | NA | ◐ | ● |
McCalman J, Tsey K, Clifford A, Earles W, Shakeshaft A and Bainbridge R [27] | ○ | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | NA | ○ | ● |
McCalman J, Bridge F, Whiteside M, Bainbridge R, Tsey K and Jongen C [61] | ● | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ◐ | ● | ○ | ○ | ● |
Calabria B, Clifford A, Shakeshaft AP and Doran CM [21] | ○ | ● | ● | ○ | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | NA | ◐ | ● |
Ospina MB, Voaklander DC, Stickland MK, King M, Senthilselvan A and Rowe BH [25] | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ● |
Graham S, Guy RJ, Cowie B, Wand HC, Donovan B, Akre SP and Ward JS [19] | ○ | ○ | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ○ | ○ | ● | ○ | ● |
Adegbija OO and Wang ZQ [14] | ○ | ● | ● | ○ | ◐ | ● | ○ | ○ | ● | ○ | ● |
Lyons JG, O’Dea K and Walker KZ [20] | ○ | ● | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ○ | ● |
Laws R, Campbell KJ, van der Pligt P, Russell G, Ball K, Lynch J, Crawford D, Taylor R, Askew D and Denney-Wilson E [18] | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | NA | ◐ | ● |
Miller A, Smith ML, Judd J and Speare R [68] | ○ | ○ | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ○ | ○ | ○ | ○ | ● |
Banbury A, Roots A and Nancarrow S [73] | ● | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ○ | ○ |
Bainbridge R, Tsey K, McCalman J and Towle S [35] | ○ | ● | ● | ● | ◐ | ● | ● | ● | ○ | ○ | ● |
●–equivalent to yes in the original tool specification the paper fully addressed the domain | 6 (30%) | 10 (50%) | 19 (95%) | 14 (70%) | 1 (5%) | 20 (100%) | 14 (70%) | 15 (75%) | 8 (40%) | 0 | 19 (95%) |
○–the paper did not address the domain at all or can’t answer | 14 (70%) | 7 (35%) | 0 | 3 (15%) | 0 | 0 | 5 (25%) | 4 (20%) | 8 (40%) | 11 (55%) | 1 (5%) |
◐–the paper addressed the domain to some extent | 0 | 3 (15%) | 1 (5%) | 3 (15%) | 19 (95%) | 0 | 1 (5%) | 1 (5%) | 0 | 9 (45%) | 0 |