Reaching for the stars – rating the quality of systematic reviews with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (<scp>AMSTAR</scp>) 2

Jung, Jae Hung; Dahm, Philipp

doi:10.1111/bju.14571

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since AMSTAR 2 was developed from AMSTAR in 2017, it has been considered a valid and reliable methodological quality assessment tool 19 81. The lengths of AMSTAR 2 have been described in other studies 21 82 83. This tool helped us identify the highest methodological quality of the meta-analyses of RCTs and also the meta-analyses of observational studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inconsistencies were resolved through a discussion or consultation with a fourth reviewer (Sheng Xie). AMSTAR 2 is a reliable, valid and critical assessment tool developed from AMSTAR in 2017 19–21. It contains 16 checklists (7 critical checklists and 9 non-critical checklists) for assessing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies, observational studies on exposures or both.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Association betweenH. pyloriinfection and health Outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Tan

Liu

et al. 2020

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveSystematic reviews and meta-analyses have revealed the associations betweenH. pyloriinfection and various health outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the strength and breadth of evidence on the associations.DesignUmbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.SettingNo settings.ParticipantsNo patients involved.Data sourcesEmbase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library Databases, CNKI, VIP database and Wangfang database from inception to February 1, 2019.Outcomes measuresDiverse diseases (such as cancer and ischaemic heart disease).ResultsSixty articles reporting 88 unique outcomes met the eligible criteria. 74 unique outcomes had nominal significance (p<0.05). Of the outcomes with significance, 61 had harmful associations and 13 had beneficial associations. Furthermore, 73% (64) of the outcomes exhibited significant heterogeneity . Of the these meta-analyses, 32 had moderate to high heterogeneity (I2=50%–75%) and 24 had high heterogeneity (I2>75%). Moreover, 20% exhibited publication bias (p<0.1). In addition, 97% of the methodological qualities were rated ‘critically low’. 36% of the evidence qualities of outcomes were rated ‘low’, 56% of the evidence qualities were rated ‘very low’ and 8% of the evidence qualities were rated ‘moderate’.H. pyloriinfection may be associated with an increased risk of five diseases and a decreased risk of irritable bowel syndrome.ConclusionAlthough 60 meta-analyses explored 88 unique outcomes, moderate quality evidence only existed for six outcomes with statistical significance.H. pyloriinfection may be associated with a decreased risk of irritable bowel syndrome and an increased risk of hypertriglyceridemia, chronic cholecystitis and cholelithiasis, gestational diabetes mellitus, gastric cancer and systemic sclerosis.Trial registrationCRD42019124680.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association betweenH. pyloriinfection and health Outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Tan

Liu

et al. 2020

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…AMSTAR 2 is a reliable, valid and critical assessment tool developed from the initial AMSTAR in 2017. 18 19 20 It contains 16 checklists (7 critical checklists and 9 non-critical checklists) for assessing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including randomized controlled trials, observational studies on exposure, or both ( Table 1 ). The rating criteria of AMSTAR 2 are as follows: the presence of 0–1 non-critical weakness is defined as high quality; more than 1 non-critical weakness is defined as moderate quality; 1 critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses is defined as low quality; and the presence of more than 1 critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses is defined as critically low quality.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Potential Role of Dyslipidemia in COVID-19 Severity: an Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

Choi

Kim

Kang

2020

J Lipid Atheroscler

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the available knowledge about the potential association between dyslipidemia and the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as reported in previous published systematic reviews. Methods: In this umbrella review (an overview of systematic reviews), we investigated the association between dyslipidemia and COVID-19 severity. A systematic search was performed of 4 main electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases) from inception until August 2020. We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence for the outcome. In addition, we evaluated the strengths and limitations of the evidence and the methodological quality of the available studies. Results: Out of 35 articles identified, 2 systematic reviews were included in the umbrella review. A total of 7,951 COVID-19-positive patients were included. According to the AMSTAR 2 criteria and GRADE system, the quality of the included studies was not high. A history of dyslipidemia is likely to be associated with the severity of COVID-19 infection, but the contrary is the case for cholesterol levels at hospitalization. Conclusions: Although existing research on dyslipidemia and COVID-19 is limited, our findings suggest that dyslipidemia may play a role in the severity of COVID-19 infection. More adequately powered studies are needed.

show abstract

“…16 In order to evaluate the quality of these systematic reviews, the "Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews -2" tool were used. 19 Amstar has been specifically developed as a comprehensive critical appraisal instrument, originally only for randomized controlled trials. Amstar 2 is a 16 item tool that include also non-randomized trials, remaining simple and straightforward to use.…”

Section: Evidence For Peri-implant Maintenancementioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of maintenance on peri-implant health

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most of the literature evaluating dental implants focuses on implant survival, which is a limited proxy for the successful rehabilitation of patients with missing teeth. Success should include not only survival but also lack of mechanical, biological, and esthetics problems. A comprehensive review of local and systemic risk factors prior to implant placement will allow the tailoring of treatment planning and maintenance protocols to the patient's profile in order to achieve longitudinal success of the therapy. This review discusses the role of controlling different risk factors and prevention/treatment of peri-implant mucositis in order to avoid peri-implantitis. Although the literature addressing the topic is still scarce, the existing evidence shows that performing optimal plaque control and regular visits to the dentist seem to be adequate to prevent peri-implant lesions. Due to impossibility of defining a probing depth associate with peri-implant health, radiographic evaluations may be considered in the daily practice. So far, there is a strong evidence linking a past history of periodontal disease to peri-implant lesions, but this is not so evident for other factors including smoking and diabetes. The prevention of biological complications starts even before implant placement and include a broader analysis of the patient risk profile and tailoring the rehabilitation and maintenance protocols accordingly. It should be highlighted that the installation of implants does not modify the patient profile, since it does not modify genetics, microbiology or behavioral habits of any individual.

show abstract

Reaching for the stars – rating the quality of systematic reviews with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2

Cited by 15 publications

References 6 publications

Association betweenH. pyloriinfection and health Outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Association betweenH. pyloriinfection and health Outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

The Potential Role of Dyslipidemia in COVID-19 Severity: an Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

The impact of maintenance on peri-implant health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About