Umbrella review protocol type 2 diabetes mellitus and fracture risk

Table 1 The results of quality assessment included meta-analyses based on A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 questionnaire

Ref.	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11	Q12	Q13	Q14	Q15	Q16	Overall
Moayeri et al[22]	√	×	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	High
Fan et al[28]	√	×	√	√	×	×	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	Moderate
Wang et al[29]	√	×	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	High
Bai et al[30]	√	×	√	√	×	×	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	Moderate
Ni et al[31]	√	×	√	√	×	×	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	Moderate
Dou et al[32]	√	×	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	High
Vilaca et al[33]	√	×	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	Moderate
Zhang et al[34]	√	×	√	√	×	×	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	Low
Thong et al[35]	√	×	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	High
Qiu et al[36]	√	×	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	Moderate
Ji et al[37]	√	×	√	√	×	×	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	High
Jia et al[38]	√	×	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	Moderate
Gao et al[39]	√	×	√	√	√	√	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	High
Vilaca et al[40]	√	×	√	√	×	×	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	Low
Dytfeld et al[41]	√	×	√	√	×	×	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	High
Wang et al[42]	√	×	√	√	×	×	×	√	√	×	√	√	√	√	√	×	Moderate

Q1: Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome; Q2: Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established before performing the review, and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol; Q3: Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review; Q4: Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy; Q5: Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate; Q6: Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate; Q7: Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions; Q8: Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail; Q9: Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies that were included in the review; Q10: Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review; Q11: If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors use appropriate methods for the statistical combination of results; Q12: If a 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; Q13: Did the review authors account for risk of bias in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the review results; Q14: Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for and discussion of any heterogeneity observed in the review results; Q15: If they performed quantitative synthesis, did the review authors conduct an adequate investigation of publication bias (small-study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the review results; Q16: Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review.