scholarly journals Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

2007 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Beverley J Shea ◽  
Jeremy M Grimshaw ◽  
George A Wells ◽  
Maarten Boers ◽  
Neil Andersson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Measurement Tool

scholarly journals Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Oral Nutritional Supplements in the Management of Malnutrition: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Baldwin ◽  
Rosemary Smith ◽  
Michelle Gibbs ◽  
C Elizabeth Weekes ◽  
Peter W Emery
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Hospital Readmissions ◽  
Nutritional Supplement ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Oral Nutritional Supplements ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACT There is considerable heterogeneity across the findings of systematic reviews of oral nutritional supplement (ONS) interventions, presenting difficulties for healthcare decision-makers and patients alike. It is not known whether heterogeneity arises from differences in patient populations or relates to methodological rigor. This overview aimed to collate and compare findings from systematic reviews of ONSs compared with routine care in adult patients who were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition with any clinical condition and to examine their methodological quality. Three electronic databases were searched to July 2019, supplemented with hand-searching. Data on all outcomes were extracted and review methodological quality assessed using A MeaSurement Tool for Assessment of systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Twenty-two reviews were included, 11 in groups from mixed clinical backgrounds and 11 in specific clinical conditions. Ninety-one meta-analyses were identified for 12 different outcomes but there was discordance between results. Significant benefits of ONSs were reported in 4 of 4 analyses of energy intake, 7 of 11 analyses of body weight, 7 of 22 analyses of mortality, 10 of 17 analyses of complications (total and infectious), 1 of 3 analyses of muscle strength, 4 of 9 analyses of body composition/nutritional status, 2 of 14 analyses of length of stay, and 2 of 5 analyses of hospital readmissions. Ten reviews were high quality (AMSTAR scores 8–11), 9 moderate (AMSTAR scores 3–8), and 3 poor (AMSTAR scores 0–3). Methodological deficiencies were limitations to searches, poor reporting of heterogeneity, and failure to incorporate quality of evidence into any recommendations. Discordance between reviews was not markedly reduced when only high-quality reviews were considered. Evidence for the effects of ONS in malnourished patients or those who are at risk of malnutrition is uncertain, and discordance in results can arise from differences in clinical background of patients or the etiological basis of malnutrition.

scholarly journals Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e036349
Author(s):  
Victoria Leclercq ◽  
Charlotte Beaudart ◽  
Sara Ajamieh ◽  
Ezio Tirelli ◽  
Olivier Bruyère
Keyword(s):  
Epidemiological Study ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Literature Search Strategy ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectivesMeta-analyses (MAs) are often used because they are lauded to provide robust evidence that synthesises information from multiple studies. However, the validity of MA conclusions relies on the procedural rigour applied by the authors. Therefore, this meta-research study aims to characterise the methodological quality and meta-analytic practices of MAs indexed in PsycINFO.DesignA meta-epidemiological study.ParticipantsWe evaluated a random sample of 206 MAs indexed in the PsycINFO database in 2016.Primary and secondary outcomesTwo authors independently extracted the methodological characteristics of all MAs and checked their quality according to the 16 items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) tool for MA critical appraisal. Moreover, we investigated the effect of mentioning Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) on the methodological quality of MAs.ResultsAccording to AMSTAR2 criteria, 95% of the 206 MAs were rated as critically low quality. Statistical methods were appropriate and publication bias was well evaluated in 87% and 70% of the MAs, respectively. However, much improvement is needed in data collection and analysis: only 11% of MAs published a research protocol, 44% had a comprehensive literature search strategy, 37% assessed and 29% interpreted the risk of bias in the individual included studies, and 11% presented a list of excluded studies. Interestingly, the explicit mentioning of PRISMA suggested a positive influence on the methodological quality of MAs.ConclusionThe methodological quality of MAs in our sample was critically low according to the AMSTAR2 criteria. Some efforts to tremendously improve the methodological quality of MAs could increase their robustness and reliability.

Reasons and factors associated with inconclusiveness of systematic reviews about interventions for neuropathic pain

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Svjetlana Dosenovic ◽  
Andria Dujmic ◽  
Danijela Nujic ◽  
Ivana Vuka ◽  
Goran Tintor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Explicit Statement ◽  
Cochrane Database

Aim: Systematic reviews (SRs) are frequently inconclusive. The aim of this study was to analyze factors associated with conclusiveness of SRs about efficacy and safety of interventions for neuropathic pain (NeuP). Materials & methods: The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (No. CRD42015025831). Five electronic databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Psychological Information Database) were searched until July 2018 for SRs about NeuP management. Conclusion statements for efficacy and safety, and characteristics of SRs were analyzed. Conclusiveness was defined as explicit statement by the SR authors that one intervention is better/similar to the other in terms of efficacy and safety. Methodological quality of SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) tool. Results: Of 160 SRs, 37 (23%) were conclusive for efficacy and/or safety. In the SRs, conclusions about safety were missing in half of the analyzed abstracts, and a third of the full texts. Conclusive SRs included significantly more trials and participants, searched more databases, had more authors, conducted meta-analysis, analyzed quality of evidence, and had lower methodological quality than inconclusive SRs. The most common reasons for the lack of conclusiveness indicated by the SR authors were the small number of participants and trials, and the high heterogeneity of included studies. Conclusion: Most SRs about NeuP treatment were inconclusive. Sources of inconclusiveness of NeuP reviews need to be further studied, and SR authors need to provide conclusions about both safety and efficacy of interventions.

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii51-ii52
Author(s):  
A M George ◽  
S Gupta ◽  
S M Keshwara ◽  
M A Mustafa ◽  
C S Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurofibromatosis Type ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Reporting and methodological quality of systematic literature reviews evaluating the associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors: a systematic quality review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mimi M. Kim ◽  
Lynley Pound ◽  
Isabella Steffensen ◽  
Geoffrey M. Curtin
Keyword(s):  
Cigarette Smoking ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Smoking Initiation ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Cigarette Use ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Smoking Behaviors

Abstract Introduction Several published systematic reviews have examined the potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking, but their methodological and/or reporting quality have not yet been assessed. This systematic quality review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2 to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews investigating potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking. Materials and methods PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from 01 January 2007 to 24 June 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and reporting quality was assessed using PRISMA guidelines. Results Of 331 potentially relevant systematic reviews, 20 met predefined inclusion criteria. Most reviews (n = 15; 75%) reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking cessation, while three reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking initiation (15%); and two reported on cigarette smoking initiation and cessation (10%). According to AMSTAR 2 guidelines, 18 of the 20 reviews (90%) were “critically low” in overall confidence of the results, while two were ranked “low.” Additionally, reporting quality varied across the reviews, with only 60% reporting at least half of the PRISMA items. Discussion Methodological limitations were identified across reviews examining potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors, indicating that findings from these reviews should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions Future systematic reviews in this field should strive to adhere to AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA guidelines, to provide high quality syntheses of the available data with transparent and complete reporting.

Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 852-856 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Wasiak ◽  
A. Y. Shen ◽  
R. Ware ◽  
T. J. O’Donohoe ◽  
C. M. Faggion
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Methodological Assessment ◽  
Meta Analyses

The objective of this study was to assess methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2016 for relevant studies. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 91 studies were included in the analysis. Most reviews inadequately reported PRISMA items regarding study protocol, search strategy and bias and AMSTAR items regarding protocol, publication bias and funding. Systematic reviews published in a plastics journal, or which included more authors, were associated with higher AMSTAR scores. A large proportion of systematic reviews within hand and wrist pathology literature score poorly with validated methodological assessment tools, which may affect the reliability of their conclusions. Level of evidence: I

scholarly journals AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. 1013-1020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beverley J. Shea ◽  
Candyce Hamel ◽  
George A. Wells ◽  
Lex M. Bouter ◽  
Elizabeth Kristjansson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Valid Measurement

scholarly journals Evaluating the Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses About Breast Augmentation Using AMSTAR

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morgan Yuan ◽  
Jeremy Wu ◽  
Ryan E Austin ◽  
Frank Lista ◽  
Jamil Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic surgeries worldwide. Therefore, it is imperative to have evidence with high methodological quality to guide clinical decision making. Objectives To evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) focused on breast augmentation. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was performed. SRs that have a particular focus on breast augmentation and were published in the top 15 plastic and reconstructive surgery journals were included. Quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Study characteristics were extracted including journal and impact factor, year of publication, country affiliation of corresponding author, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of citations, and number of studies included. Results Among the 22 studies included for analysis, the mean AMSTAR score was moderate (5.55), with no SR achieving good quality (AMSTAR score ≥9). There were no significant associations between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor, number of citations, year of publication, or number of included studies. Studies that reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines on average scored higher on the AMSTAR tool (p=0.03). Conclusions The methodological quality of reviews about breast augmentation was found to be moderate, with no significant increase in studies or quality over time. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines and increased appraisal of SRs about breast augmentation using methodological assessment tools would further strengthen methodological quality and confidence in study findings.

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Published in High-Impact Otolaryngology Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 163 (5) ◽  
pp. 892-905
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Martinez-Monedero ◽  
Arman Danielian ◽  
Varun Angajala ◽  
Jennifer E. Dinalo ◽  
Eric J. Kezirian
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Abstract Screening

Objective To assess the methodological quality of intervention-focused systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) published in high-impact otolaryngology journals. Data Sources Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Review Methods A comprehensive search was performed for SR and MA citations from 2012 to 2017 in the 10 highest impact factor otolaryngology journals. Abstracts were screened to identify published manuscripts in which the authors indicated clearly that they were performing an SR or MA. Applying a modified typology of reviews, 4 reviewers characterized the review type as SR, MA, or another review type. A simplified version of the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2) tool was used to assess the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs and MAs that were focused on interventions. Results Search and abstract screening generated 499 manuscripts that identified themselves as performing an SR or MA. A substantial number (85/499, 17%) were review types other than SRs or MAs, including 34 (7%) that were literature reviews. In total, 236 SRs and MAs focused on interventions. Over 50% of these SRs and MAs had weaknesses in at least 3 of the 16 items in the AMSTAR 2, and over 40% had weaknesses in at least 2 of the 7 critical domains. Ninety-nine percent of SRs and MAs provided critically low confidence in the results of the reviews. Conclusion Intervention-focused SRs and MAs published in high-impact otolaryngology journals have important methodological limitations that diminish confidence in the results of these reviews.

scholarly journals The methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews is low, except for Cochrane reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki KATAOKA ◽  
Shiho Oide ◽  
Takashi Ariie ◽  
Yasushi Tsujimoto ◽  
Toshi A. Furukawa
Keyword(s):  
Epidemiological Study ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Mean

Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews (SRs) indexed in medRxiv and PubMed, compared with Cochrane COVID Reviews. Study Design and Setting: This is a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. We searched medRxiv, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for SRs of COVID-19. We evaluated the methodological quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklists. The maximum AMSTAR score is 11, and minimum is 0. Higher score means better quality. Results: We included 9 Cochrane reviews as well as randomly selected 100 non-Cochrane reviews in medRxiv and PubMed. Compared with Cochrane reviews (mean 9.33, standard deviation 1.32), the mean AMSTAR scores of the articles in medRxiv were lower (mean difference -2.85, 95%confidence intervals (CI): -0.96 to -4.74) and those in PubMed was also lower (mean difference -3.28, 95% CI: -1.40 to -5.15), with no difference between the latter two. Conclusions: It should be noted that AMSTAR is not a perfect tool of assessing quality SRs other than intervention. Readers should pay attention to the potentially low methodological quality of COVID-19 SRs in both PubMed and medRxiv but less so in Cochrane COVID reviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document