Amstar 12 The 12 items of the AMSTAR 12 are as follows: 1. Was an "a priori" design provided? 2. Was there a duplicate process for study selection and data extraction? 3. Was there a comprehensive literature search? 4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The AMSTAR 12 is a valuable tool for assessing the quality of systematic reviews, and it can be used to identify areas for improvement in the review process. It can also be used to compare the methodological quality of different reviews and to inform the decision-making process in evidence-based medicine. In conclusion, the AMSTAR 12 is a comprehensive and reliable tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. It is widely used in the research community and has been validated in various studies. By using the AMSTAR 12, researchers and clinicians can ensure that the systematic reviews they use are of high quality and provide reliable evidence to inform their decisions. The AMSTAR 12 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) is a critical appraisal tool used to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. It was developed by an international group of experts in evidence-based medicine and was published in 2017. The tool consists of 12 items that evaluate the key aspects of a systematic review, including the research question, search strategy, study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and synthesis of results. The AMSTAR 12 is a revised version of the original AMSTAR tool, which was published in 2007 and consisted of 11 items. The new version includes updated and refined criteria to better reflect the current standards of systematic review methodology. The AMSTAR 12 is a validated and reliable tool that has been widely adopted in the research community. The 12 items of the AMSTAR 12 are as follows: 1. Was an "a priori" design provided? 6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? 7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? 8. Was the risk of bias from individual studies included in the review reported?