Raising the bar for systematic reviews with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (<scp>AMSTAR</scp>)

Dahm, Philipp

doi:10.1111/bju.13754

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the later phases of development of AMSTAR 2 we had access to, and discussed, recently published critiques of AMSTAR. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 23 The publications describing the original AMSTAR instrument were widely cited and the instrument has been used and critiqued extensively. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 …”

Section: Development Of Amstarmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since publication, several critiques of the instrument have been published. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 These critiques plus feedback received at workshops and developments in the science of systematic reviews pointed to a need to revise and update the original AMSTAR instrument.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

Shea

Reeves

Wells

et al. 2017

BMJ

5,910

5,404

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.

show abstract

“…In the later phases of development of AMSTAR 2 we had access to, and discussed, recently published critiques of AMSTAR. 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 23 The publications describing the original AMSTAR instrument were widely cited and the instrument has been used and critiqued extensively. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 …”

Section: Development Of Amstarmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

Shea

Reeves

Wells

et al. 2017

BMJ

5,910

5,404

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 27–30 Registration of protocols with platforms such as PROSPERO can aid in holding SRs accountable in this regard; some journals have made this mandatory. 31 Deficits in the disclosure of excluded studies, for example, narrow the transparency of study selection, while absence of sensitivity analyses impedes the possibility of readers to assess the findings against the background of study quality. Conflicts of interest may also play a role in the heterogeneity of published SRs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo compare cancer-related systematic reviews (SRs) published in the Cochrane Database of SRs (CDSR) and high-impact journals, with respect to type, content, quality and citation rates.DesignMethodological SR with assessment and comparison of SRs and meta-analyses. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality using an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-based extraction form. Both authors independently screened search results, extracted content-relevant characteristics and retrieved citation numbers of the included reviews using the Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database.Data sourcesCancer-related SRs were retrieved from the CDSR, as well as from the 10 journals which publish oncological SRs and had the highest impact factors, using a comprehensive search in both the CDSR and MEDLINE.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included all cancer-related SRs and meta-analyses published from January 2011 to May 2016. Methodological SRs were excluded.ResultsWe included 346 applicable Cochrane reviews and 215 SRs from high-impact journals. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95% CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95% CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95% CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0–143); high-impact journal SRs: 74.45 (0–652)).ConclusionsWhen comparing cancer-related SRs published in the CDSR versus those published in high-impact medical journals, Cochrane reviews were consistently of higher methodological quality, but cited less frequently.

show abstract

“…At the same time, this provides the unique opportunity to reflect on methodological developments in the field and BJU International 's efforts to raise the bar of the methodological quality of SRs, which include the provision of an Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) rating . AMSTAR is a validated tool to assess the components of a SR on an 11‐point scale (0–11), with higher scores reflecting higher methodological rigor.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The challenge with systematic reviews of non‐randomised studies in urology

Dahm

Jung

2018

BJU International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Editorialrecurrence-free or overall survival, which are other outcomes of potentially greater patient importance.Understanding the inherent limitations of NRS, and placing their findings into appropriate clinical context are critical to the conduct of SRs. Moving forward, BJU International will continue to seek out the highest quality reviews that make use of the best, up-to-date methodology. We hope that these efforts will both serve as a beacon for the research community, but more importantly, result in improved evidence-based care for our patients.

show abstract

Raising the bar for systematic reviews with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

Cited by 15 publications

References 6 publications

AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer

The challenge with systematic reviews of non‐randomised studies in urology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About