How is AMSTAR applied by authors – a call for better reporting

Pieper, Dawid; Koensgen, Nadja; Breuing, Jessica; Ge, Long; Wegewitz, Uta

doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0520-z

Cited by 59 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For study quality, we calculated an overall AMSTAR score and used an arbitrary cut-off (ie, 50%) to distinguish low and high quality reviews. Both approaches are discussed in the literature, since the calculation of an overall quality score assumes that all questions are of equal importance and different cutoffs exist (39,40). Both other cut-off points to define reviews of high quality as well as a three category approach (with low, moderate, and high quality) have been used to distinguish between reviews of higher or lower quality (39).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both approaches are discussed in the literature, since the calculation of an overall quality score assumes that all questions are of equal importance and different cutoffs exist (39,40). Both other cut-off points to define reviews of high quality as well as a three category approach (with low, moderate, and high quality) have been used to distinguish between reviews of higher or lower quality (39). However, meta-reviews that applied a three category approach often merged findings from moderate and high quality studies in the same category for an evidence synthesis (16).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effectiveness of workplace health promotion interventions on physical and mental health outcomes – a systematic review of reviews

Proper¹,

Oostrom²

2019

Scand J Work Environ Health

162

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of workplace health promotion interventions on physical and mental health outcomes -a systematic review of reviews by Proper KI, van Oostrom SH This review found evidence of workplace health promotion to prevent weight-related outcomes, depression and musculoskeletal disorders. However, there is an absence of reviews concerning the effectiveness of workplace interventions on the onset of lung diseases, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. It is currently not possible to formulate evidence-based recommendations about which components and in what dose or frequency should be applied.Proper KI, van Oostrom SH. The effectiveness of workplace health promotion interventions on physical and mental health outcomes -a systematic review of reviews.Objective This systematic review aimed to provide an overview of the effectiveness of health promotion interventions at the workplace on physical and mental health outcomes related to chronic diseases.Methods A search for reviews published between 2009 and 2018 was performed in electronic databases. References of the included reviews were checked for additional reviews. Workplace health promotion interventions were included if they studied metabolic risk factors as important predictors of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) or if they studied mental or musculoskeletal health outcomes. Review quality was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist. ResultsOf the 23 reviews included, 9 were of high quality. For weight-related outcomes, there was strong evidence for favorable effects of workplace interventions, especially for interventions targeting physical activity and/or diet. For the remaining metabolic risk factors, there was no evidence for a positive effect of workplace health promotion interventions due to the absence of high quality reviews and mixed conclusions between the reviews. There was also strong evidence for a positive, small effect on the prevention of mental health disorders of workplace psychological interventions, especially those that use e-health and cognitive behavioral therapy techniques. Furthermore, strong evidence was found for the prevention of musculoskeletal disorders through workplace interventions, especially resistance exercise training.Conclusions This review found evidence for the effectiveness of workplace interventions on the prevention of weight-related outcomes as well as mental health and musculoskeletal disorders. Future research is however needed on the factors that contribute to the successful implementation of an intervention.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of workplace health promotion interventions on physical and mental health outcomes – a systematic review of reviews

Proper¹,

Oostrom²

2019

Scand J Work Environ Health

162

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participants also reported that they consider the inclusion of previous evidence synthesis to be useful for streamlining. While the use of pre-existing reviews was one strategy proposed for development of RRs, it is important to note that this strategy depends on the availability of existing SRs that satisfy the updated standards of preferred reporting items [26][27][28]. These may not exist for all topics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey

Arévalo-Rodríguez

Steingart

Tricco

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviewsthey can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests. Methods: We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world. Results: All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively). Conclusion: Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.

show abstract

“…Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: CASP, ). These instruments should be carefully applied and their use described in detail by meta‐review authors (Pieper, Koensgen, Breuing, Ge, & Wegewitz, ), including whether modifications were applied. Similar to the process for data extraction, meta‐review teams should engage in training of assessors and a pilot implementation period of these tools to ensure that their application is accurate.…”

Section: Steps For All Types Of Systematic Syntheses Applied To Meta‐mentioning

confidence: 99%

Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta‐Reviews

Hennessy

Johnson

Keenan

2019

Applied Psych Health & Well

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A growing body of primary study and systematic review literature evaluates interventions and phenomena in applied and health psychology. Reviews of reviews (i.e., meta-reviews) systematically synthesise and utilise this vast and often overwhelming literature; yet, currently there are few practical guidelines for meta-review authors to follow. Objective: The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the best practice guidelines for all research synthesis and to detail additional specific considerations and methodological details for the best practice of conducting a rigorous meta-review. Methods: This article provides readers with six systematic and practical steps along with accompanying examples to address with rigor the unique challenges that arise when authors familiar with systematic review methods begin a meta-review: (a) detailing a clear scope, (b) identifying synthesis literature through strategic searches, (c) considering datedness of the literature, (d) addressing overlap among included reviews, (e) choosing and applying review quality tools, and (f) appropriate options for handling the synthesis and reporting of the vast amount of data collected in a meta-review. Conclusions: We have curated best practice recommendations and practical tips for conducting a meta-review. We anticipate that assessments of meta-review quality will ultimately formalise best-method guidelines.

show abstract

How is AMSTAR applied by authors – a call for better reporting

Cited by 59 publications

References 30 publications

The effectiveness of workplace health promotion interventions on physical and mental health outcomes – a systematic review of reviews

The effectiveness of workplace health promotion interventions on physical and mental health outcomes – a systematic review of reviews

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey

Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta‐Reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About