| Quality measure |
Details |
Score |
Comments |
| QA question 1 |
Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? |
1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. |
general but concrete description of aims |
| QA question 2 |
Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? |
0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. |
not provided |
| QA question 3 |
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? |
1 = “Yes” = explicit justification of the study designs/types included in the review. |
all types of studies included; justified |
| QA question 4 |
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? |
0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or general search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g., language). |
6 databases searched and peer-reviewed journal papers in English were considered; but other sources were not searched |
| QA question 5 |
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? |
0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. |
No description how many reviewers participated |
| QA question 6 |
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? |
0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. |
"The papers were reread several times and verified by the coresearcher
to finalize the coding" |
| QA question 7 |
Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? |
0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. |
not provided |
| QA question 8 |
Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? |
0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When briefly described, or only some of these described in detail. Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. |
Tables 3, 4, 5 provide summaries of the subsets of the studies, however all 110 included studies are not listed and characterised |
| QA question 9 |
Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? |
0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. |
not provided |
| QA question 10 |
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? |
0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. |
not provided |
| QA question 11 |
If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? |
N/A |
no meta-analysis |
| QA question 12 |
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? |
N/A |
no meta-analysis |
| QA question 13 |
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? |
0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. |
not provided |
| QA question 14 |
Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? |
1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. |
the paper decribes in ditail the diversity fo studies on the topic, identifying gluts and gaps. The results of thee studies are not directly comparable, due to different focus points. "The review highlighted
that studies have not covered all elements in the complex system
of resource saving sufficiently, particularly human behaviour, and
study results are often not communicated clearly for them to be
transferable or implementable." |
| QA question 15 |
If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? |
N/A |
no meta-analysis |
| QA question 16 |
Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? |
0 = ”No” = The authors did not provide statement on competing interests and funding sources, and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. |
not provided |
| Quality index |
Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. |
B |
no protocol, some details missing, some bias might be present |
| Suggested review type |
Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. |
systematic map |
N/A |
| Risk of bias level |
How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? |
medium |
no protocol, only some details of the search; no full list of included studies; no funding/interests disclosure |