Different Approaches to Appraising Systematic Reviews of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion Using AMSTAR 2 Tool: Cross-Sectional Study

Santis, Karina Karolina De; Matthias, Katja

doi:10.3390/ijerph20064689

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, evidence appraisal tools for SRs, such as AMSTAR 2, are increasingly more important to evaluate if the SRs are methodologically sound and designed to reduce bias in their outcomes [38]. AMSTAR 2 could be used to detect SRs with the lowest confidence ratings and exclude them from the pool of relevant SRs for policy development or health decision-making [39]. Such classification of SRs could be helpful for decision makers, who find it difficult to select appropriate SRs for their work [40].…”

Section: Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary

Santis

Pieper

Lorenz

et al. 2023

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background ‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’ (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating of the individual items and the application of AMSTAR 2 from the user perspective. Discussion A group of six experienced users (methodologists working in different clinical fields for at least 10 years) identified and discussed the challenges in rating of each item and the general use of AMSTAR 2 to appraise SRs. A group discussion was used to develop recommendations on how users could deal with the identified challenges. We identified various challenges with the content of items 2–16 and with the derivation of the overall confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2. These challenges include the need (1) to provide additional definitions (e.g., what constitutes major deviations from SR protocol on item 2), (2) to choose a rating strategy for multiple conditions on single items (e.g., how to rate item 5 if studies were selected in duplicate, but consensus between two authors was not reported), and (3) to determine rules for deriving the confidence ratings (e.g., what items are critical for such ratings). Based on these challenges we formulated specific recommendations for items 2–16 that AMSTAR 2 users could consider before applying the tool. Summary Our commentary adds to the existing literature by providing the first in-depth examination of the AMSTAR 2 tool from the user perspective. The identified challenges could be addressed by additional decision rules including definitions for ambiguous items and guidance for rating of complex items and derivation of confidence ratings. We recommend that a team consensus regarding such decision rules is required before appraisal procedure begins. Trial registration Not applicable.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Practicementioning

confidence: 99%