Robotic-assisted donor and recipient hepatectomy in liver transplantation: An umbrella review of clinical outcomes, surgical performance, and cost-effectiveness

Table 5 Methodological quality of included reviews (AMSTAR 2) - summary: AMSTAR 2 overall confidence for each review

Ref.	Overall AMSTAR 2 rating	Key strengths/Limitations
Hobeika et al[20]	Moderate	PROSPERO-registered SR; multi-database search; dual/blinded quality appraisal; no de novo quantitative pooling for transplant-specific outcomes
Giglio et al[21]	Moderate	Protocol/registration; duplicate screening and extraction; sensitivity analyses; limited grey literature reporting
Pilz da Cunha et al[22]	High	Comprehensive search; duplicate processes; risk-of-bias assessment; appropriate meta-analytic methods; sensitivity/subgroup analyses
Koh et al[23]	High	Transparent network meta-analysis; study quality and model diagnostics described; heterogeneity and small-study effects assessed
Broering et al[24]	High	Explicit multi-database search with PRISMA flow; pooled estimates with heterogeneity; consideration of study quality; publication-bias assessment where feasible

Item-level checklists and justifications are provided in Supplementary Table 3. For Hobeika et al[20], AMSTAR 2 pertains exclusively to the embedded systematic-review methods; the consensus recommendations were not graded.