Skip to main content


Table 4 AMSTAR (assessment of multiple systematic reviews) checklist

From: Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and treatment methods: a systematic review of systematic reviews

Reference 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Score from11
1. Clegg, Scott et al. 2001 [84] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11
2. Lange, Prenzler et al. 2014 [85] N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 9
3. Bongers, Coupe et al. 2012 [86] N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y 8
4. Raymakers, Mayo et al. 2016 [87] Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y 8
5. Maher, Miake-Lye et al. 2012 [88] Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y 9
6. Brown, Pilkington et al. 2013[89] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y 10
7. Cao, Rodrigues et al. 2012 [90] N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 8
8. Black, Bagust et al. 2006 [58] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 11
  1. 1- Was an “a priori” design provided?, 2- was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?, 3- was a comprehensive literature search performed?, 4- was the status of publication (ie, grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?, 5- was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?, 6- were the characteristics of the included studies provided?, 7- Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?, 8-Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?, 9- Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?, 10- was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?, 11- Was the conflict of interest included?
  2. Y yes, N no, CA can’t answer, NA not applicable