Were all the items easy to interpret? If not, why not? Were there any specific items you struggled with?
In your opinion, were there any aspects of the review process (e.g. protocol writing and registration, searching the literature, study selection, data extraction, data analysis and synthesis, reporting the results) which were not adequately covered by the tool?
If not, which areas were not covered sufficiently?
In your opinion, does the tool provide a complete assessment of the overall quality of a review? If not, why not?