Impact of choice of quality appraisal tool for systematic reviews in overviews

Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 72-78

  Pieper, Dawid ^a   Mathes, Tim ^a   Eikermann, Michaela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Evidence based medicine; Observer variation; Psychometrics; Research design; Review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; CRITICAL APPRAISAL TOOL; DATA SYNTHESIS; FEASIBILITY STUDY; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); EVALUATION STUDY; LITERATURE; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUESTIONNAIRE;

EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84901503647     PISSN: 17565383     EISSN: 17565391     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12097     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Pieper D, Buechter R, Jerinic P, Eikermann M. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2012; 65(12): 1267-73.
2. Becker LA, Oxman AD. Overviews of reviews. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. In: Julian PT Higgins, Sally Green, eds. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. 607-31.
3. Hartling L, Chisholm A, Thomson D, Dryden DM. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One 2012; 7(11): e49667.
4. Pieper D, Mathes T, Neugebauer E, Eikermann M. State of evidence on the relationship between high-volume hospitals and outcomes in surgery: a systematic review of systematic reviews. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 216(5): 1015-25.
5. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 10.
6. Kang D, Wu Y, Hu D, Hong Q, Wang J, Zhang X. Reliability and External Validity of AMSTAR in Assessing Quality of TCM Systematic Reviews. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2012; 2012: 732195.
7. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2007; 2(12): e1350.
8. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62(10): 1013-20.
9. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of health-care interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011; 11(1): 15.
10. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44(11): 1271-8.
11. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44(1): 91-8.
12. Rapid appraisal protocol internet database. Rapid user guide 1.2. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Australia: Adelaide, 2006.
13. Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines. 2011. Guidelines for assessing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews. Austin TS, National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. Available at: http://www.ncddr.org/guidelines.
14. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20(1): 37-46.
15. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968; 70(4): 213-20.
16. Halm EA, Lee C, Chassin MR. Is volume related to outcome in health care? A systematic review and methodologic critique of the literature. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137(6): 511-20.
17. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992; 268(2): 240-8.
18. Cooper HM, Rosenthal R. Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychol Bull 1980; 87(3): 442-9.
19. Melchiors AC, Correr CJ, Venson R, Pontarolo R. An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions. Int J Clin Pharm 2012; 34(1): 32-42.
20. Faggion CM, Jr., Giannakopoulos NN. Critical appraisal of systematic reviews on the effect of a history of periodontitis on dental implant loss. J Clin Periodontol 2013; 40(5): 542-52.
21. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003; 289(4): 454-65.
22. Perlis CS, Harwood M, Perlis RH. Extent and impact of industry sponsorship conflicts of interest in dermatology research. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005; 52(6): 967-71.
23. Wang AT, McCoy CP, Murad MH, Montori VM. Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review. BMJ 2010; 340: c1344.
24. Voss PH, Rehfuess EA. Quality appraisal in systematic reviews of public health interventions: an empirical study on the impact of choice of tool on meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013; 67(1): 98-104.