Can AMSTAR also be applied to systematic reviews of non-randomized studies?

BMC Research Notes

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

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

^a UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Evidence synthesis; Observer agreement; Psychometrics; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); FEASIBILITY STUDY; LITERATURE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; OBSERVER VARIATION; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84907052801     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17560500     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-609     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, Levels of Evidence Oxford: University of Oxford 2009
2. Chalmers I, Glasziou P, Greenhalgh T, Heneghan C, Howick J, Libera JA, Mosche KI, Phillips B, Thornton H, Steps in Finding Evidence ("Levels") for Different Types of Question Oxford: Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, University of Oxford 2010
3. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, J Clin Epidemiol 1991 44 11 1271 1278 Epub 1991/01/01 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-B 1834807
4. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, Hutchison BG, Milner RA, Streiner DL, J Clin Epidemiol 1991 44 1 91 98 Epub 1991/01/01 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90205-N 1824710
5. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, Ramsay T, Bai A, Shukla VK, Grimshaw JM, PLoS One 2007 2 12 1350 Epub 2007/12/27 10.1371/journal.pone.0001350 18159233
6. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Shea BJ, Grimshaw J, Wells G, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter A, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM, BMC Med Res Methodol 2007 7 10
7. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells G, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry D, Boers M, J Clin Epidemiol 2009 62 10 1013 1020 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009 19230606
8. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. Hartling L, Chisholm A, Thomson D, Dryden DM, PLoS One 2012 7 11 49667 Epub 2012/11/21 10.1371/journal.pone.0049667 23166744
9. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. Pieper D, Buechter R, Jerinic P, Eikermann M, J Clin Epidemiol 2012 65 12 1267 1273 Epub 2012/09/11 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.015 22959594
10. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC, N Engl J Med 1987 316 8 450 455 Epub 1987/02/19 10.1056/NEJM198702193160806 3807986
11. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, AMSTAR: Assessing Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Hamilton, ON: McMaster University 2011 (17.05.2013); Available from: [ http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/97.html ]
12. State of evidence on the relationship between high-volume hospitals and outcomes in surgery: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Pieper D, Mathes T, Neugebauer E, Eikermann M, J Am Coll Surg 2013 216 5 1015 1025 e18. Epub 2013/03/27 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.049 23528183
13. AMSTAR and non randomized studies. Team AMSTAR, 2013 (09.07.2013); Available from: [ http://2011.colloquium.cochrane.org/workshops/measurement-tool-assess-methodological-quality-systematic-reviews-non-randomized-studies-a ]
14. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HC, Qual Life Res 2010 19 4 539 549 Epub 2010/02/20 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8 20169472
15. OMERACT: an international initiative to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology. Tugwell P, Boers M, Brooks P, Simon L, Strand V, Idzerda L, Trials 2007 8 1 38 10.1186/1745-6215-8-38 18039364
16. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Cohen J, Educ Psychol Meas 1960 20 1 37 46 10.1177/001316446002000104
17. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Cohen J, Psychol Bull 1968 70 4 213 220 Epub 1968/10/01 19673146
18. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery. Gooiker GA, van Gijn W, Wouters MW, Post PN, van de Velde CJ, Tollenaar RA, Br J Surg 2011 98 4 485 494 Epub 2011/04/19 10.1002/bjs.7413 21500187
19. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Cote P, Bombardier C, Ann Intern Med 2013 158 4 280 286 Epub 2013/02/20 10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009 23420236
20. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. Hartling L, Milne A, Hamm MP, Vandermeer B, Ansari M, Tsertsvadze A, Dryden DM, J Clin Epidemiol 2013 Epub 2013/05/21
21. Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. Kim SY, Park JE, Lee YJ, Seo HJ, Sheen SS, Hahn S, Jang BH, Son HJ, J Clin Epidemiol 2013 66 4 408 414 Epub 2013/01/23 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.016 23337781
22. An introduction to methodological issues when including non-randomised studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Reeves BC, Higgins JPT, Ramsay C, Shea B, Tugwell P, Wells GA, Res Synth Meth 2013 4 1 1 11 10.1002/jrsm.1068
23. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, Petticrew M, Altman D, International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group, European Carotid Surgery Trial Collaborative Group, Health Technol Assess 2003 7 27 ii x 1-173. Epub 2003/09/23
24. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. Egger M, Schneider M, Davey SG, BMJ 1998 316 7125 140 144 Epub 1998/02/14 10.1136/bmj.316.7125.140 9462324
25. A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies. Thompson S, Ekelund U, Jebb S, Lindroos AK, Mander A, Sharp S, Turner S, Wilks D, Int J Epidemiol 2010
26. Publication bias in clinical research. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR, Lancet 1991 337 8746 867 872 Epub 1991/04/13 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y 1672966
27. Hartling L, Bond K, Harvey K, Santaguida PL, Viswanathan M, Dryden DM, Developing and Testing a Tool for the Classification of Study Designs in Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Exposures Rockville (MD): AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2010
28. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, Higgins JPT, Green S, 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org