Skip to main content

Table 4 Quality assessment of the included reviews using the AMSTAR checklist [15]

From: Biological determinants of physical activity across the life course: a “Determinants of Diet and Physical Activity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review

Study

Was an “a priori” design provided?

Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?

Was a comprehensive literature search performed?

Was the status of publication (i.e., gray literature) used as an inclusion criterion?

Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?

Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?

Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?

Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?

Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?

Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?

Was the conflict of interest included?

Sum quality scorea (/11)

Quality of the reviewb

Barnett et al. [34]

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

9

Strong

Oglund et al. [31]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

8

Strong

Olsen et al. [22]

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

N.A.

No

C.A.

4

Moderate

Babakus et al. [24]

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

6

Moderate

Barnett et al. [33]

Yes

No

C.A.

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

N.A.

No

Yes

4

Moderate

De Craemer et al. [18]

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

N.A.

N.A.

No

Yes

4

Moderate

Ridgers et al. [17]

Yes

C.A

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

Yes

4

Moderate

Stanley et al. [19]

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

N.A.

No

Yes

4

Moderate

Uijtdewillingen et al. [28]

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

N.A.

N.A.

Yes

7

Moderate

Craggs et al. [29]

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

N.A.

No

Yes

6

Moderate

Dumith et al. [30]

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

N.A.

Yes

No

No

4

Moderate

Koeneman et al. [32]

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

C.A.

Yes

Yes

8

Strong

Siddiqi et al. [27]

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

N.A.

No

Yes

6

Moderate

Andersen et al. [16]

Yes

N.A.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

8

Strong

Hinkley et al. [21]

Yes

Yes

Yes

N.A.

No

No

No

No

N.A.

No

Yes

4

Moderate

Tzormpatzakis et al. [23]

No

C.A

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

C.A.

N.A.

No

No

2

Weak

Van der Horst et al. [20]

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

N.A.

N.A.

No

No

3

Weak

Coble et al. [25]

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

4

Moderate

Rhodes et al. [26]

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

N.A.

No

No

Yes

4

Moderate

  1. C.A. cannot answer, N.A. not applicable
  2. a0 when the criteria were not applicable for the included review; 1 when the criteria were applicable for the included review
  3. bWeak (score ranging from 0 to 3); moderate (score ranging from 4 to 7); strong (score ranging from 8 to 11) [15]