1. Where the search methods used to find evidence stated?

2. Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?

3. Were the criteria for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?

4. Was bias in the selection of studies avoided?

5. Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?

6. Was the validity of all studies referred to in the text assessed using appropriate criteria?

7. Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies reported?

8. Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question the overview addresses?

9. Were the conclusions made by the author(s) supported by the data and/or analysis reported in the overview?

Question 10 summarizes the previous ones and, specifically, asks to rate the scientific quality of the review from 1 (being extensively flawed) to 3 (carrying major flaws) to 5 (carrying minor flaws) to 7 (minimally flawed). The developers of the index specify that if the "partially/can’t tell" answer is used one or more times in questions 2, 4, 6, or 8, a review is likely to have minor flaws at best and is difficult to rule out major flaws (ie a score≤4). If the "no" option is used on question 2, 4, 6 or 8, the review is likely to have major flaws (ie a score≤3).