. 2022 Jun 30;100(9):544–561. doi: 10.2471/BLT.21.287654

Table 3. Quality of included systematic reviews on infodemics and health misinformation.

Review	Methodological requirements met, by domain^a																Overall quality
Review	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	Overall quality
Abbott et al.¹⁹	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Partly met	Yes	No	No	Partly met	No	No	NA	NA	No	Yes	NA	Yes	Critically low
Alvarez-Galvez et al.²¹	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Partly met	Yes	No	NA	NA	No	No	NA	Yes	Critically low
Aruhomukama & Bulafu²⁹	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	Partly met	Yes	No	NA	NA	No	No	NA	Yes	Critically low
Bhatt et al.³⁰	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Yes	No	Partly met	Partly met	No	NA	NA	No	No	NA	Yes	Critically low
Eckert et al.²³	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Partly met	Yes	No	NA	NA	Yes	No	NA	No	Critically low
Gabarron et al.²⁰	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	NA	NA	Yes	No	NA	Yes	Low
Gunasekeran et al.³¹	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	NA	NA	No	No	NA	Yes	Critically low
Lieneck et al.³²	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Partly met	Yes	No	NA	NA	No	No	NA	Yes	Critically low
Muhammed & Mathew³³	Yes	No	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Yes	No	Partly met	Partly met	No	NA	NA	No	Yes	NA	Yes	Critically low
Patel et al.²⁶	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Partly met	No	No	No	Partly met	No	No	NA	NA	No	No	NA	No	Critically low
Pian et al.³⁴	Yes	No	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Yes	No	Partly met	No	Yes	NA	NA	Yes	No	NA	Yes	Critically low
Rocha et al.³⁵	Yes	No	Yes	Partly met	No	No	No	Partly met	No	No	NA	NA	No	No	NA	No	Critically low
Suarez-Lledo & Alvarez-Galvez²⁴	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Yes	No	Partly met	Yes	No	NA	NA	No	No	NA	Yes	Critically low
Tang et al.²⁵	Yes	Partly met	Yes	No	No	No	No	Partly met	No	No	NA	NA	No	No	NA	No	Critically low
Truong et al.²⁷	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	NA	NA	No	No	NA	Yes	Critically low
Walter et al.²²	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Partly met	Yes	Yes	No	Partly met	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Critically low
Wang et al.²⁸	Yes	Partly met	Yes	No	No	No	No	Partly met	No	No	NA	NA	No	No	NA	No	Critically low

NA: not applicable.

Note: We judged studies using the AMSTAR 2 tool.¹⁵ For domains rated NA, the review lacked a meta-analysis.

^a Domain 1: did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO (population, intervention, comparator and outcomes)? Domain 2: did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established before the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? Domain 3: did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? Domain 4: did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? Domain 5: did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? Domain 6: did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? Domain 7: did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? Domain 8: did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? Domain 9: did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies that were included in the review? Domain 10: did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? Domain 11: if meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? Domain 12: if meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of risk of bias in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? Domain 13: did the review authors account for risk of bias in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? Domain 14: did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? Domain 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? Domain 16: did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?