References

• 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement83,813 cited
• 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement63,979 cited
• 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement26,189 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence8,270 cited
• 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—study limitations (risk of bias)2,798 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision2,681 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence—inconsistency2,318 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence—indirectness1,838 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias1,817 cited
• 2009AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews1,756 cited
• 2011GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence1,335 cited
• 2012GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes761 cited
• 2007External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)