Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better?

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Wegewitz, Uta ^a   Weikert, Beate ^a   Fishta, Alba ^a   Jacobs, Anja ^b   Pieper, Dawid ^c  

^a FEDERAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH   (Germany)

^b Federal Joint Committee of the German Health Care System (G BA)   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Decision making; Evidence Based Medicine; Methods; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PUBLISHING; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; PUBLICATION BIAS; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84984595850     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-016-0183-6     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Hartling L, et al. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49667.
2. Pieper D, et al. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(12):1267-73.
3. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(11):1271-8.
4. Oxman AD, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(1):91-8.
5. Sacks HS, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(8):450-5.
6. Pieper D, et al. Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(5):574-83.
7. Johnson BT, et al. Methodological quality of meta-analyses on the blood pressure response to exercise: a review. J Hypertens. 2014;32(4):706-23.
8. Huedo-Medina TB, et al. Methodologic quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the Mediterranean diet and cardiovascular disease outcomes: a review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;103(3):841-50.
9. Berkhof M, et al. Effective training strategies for teaching communication skills to physicians: an overview of systematic reviews. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;84(2):152-62.
10. Kelley GA, Kelley KS. Effects of exercise in the treatment of overweight and obese children and adolescents: a systematic review of meta-analyses. J Obes. 2013;2013:783103.
11. Aziz T, et al. Methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of prosthodontic-related systematic reviews. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40(4):263-78.
12. Faggion Jr CM. Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:63.
13. Burda BU, Holmer HK, Norris SL. Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):58.
14. N.N. 2015 09.09.2015]; Available from: http://www.amstar.ca/.
15. Shea BJ, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007;2(12):e1350.
16. Shea BJ, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.
17. AMSTAR working group. AMSTAR Checklist. 2016 20.05.16]; Available from: www.amstar.ca.
18. Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One. 2010;5(3).
19. Page MJ, et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;10:MR000035.
20. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA. 2002;287(21):2831-4.
21. Booth A, et al. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet. 2011;377(9760):108-9.
22. Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.
23. Khangura S, et al. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):10.
24. Buscemi N, et al. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):697-703.
25. Jonnalagadda SR, Goyal P, Huffman MD. Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4:78.
26. Morrison A, et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):138-44.
27. Pham B, et al. Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(8):769-76.
28. Xue J, et al. Significant discrepancies were found in pooled estimates of searching with Chinese indexes versus searching with English indexes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;70:246-53.
29. Higgins, JPTD, JJ. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data, in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, J.P.T.G. Higgins, S., Editor. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration.
30. Hartling L, et al. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):982-93.
31. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603-5.
32. Schünemann HJ, et al. Interpreting Results and Drawing Conclusions, in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. p. 359-387
33. IOM: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. 2011; Available from: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx. Accessed 12 July 2016.
34. Berkman ND, et al. Grading the Strength of a Body of Evidence When Assessing Health Care Interventions for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: An Update. 2008
35. Guyatt G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383-94.
36. Fu R, et al. Conducting Quantitative Synthesis When Comparing Medical Interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program. 2008
37. Kemp CA. Qigong as a therapeutic intervention with older adults. J Holist Nurs. 2004;22(4):351-73.
38. Ng BH, Tsang HW. Psychophysiological outcomes of health qigong for chronic conditions: a systematic review. Psychophysiology. 2009;46(2):257-69.
39. Guyatt G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):151-7.
40. Guyatt GH, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence - publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(12):1277-82.
41. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses, in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. p. 243-296
42. Kliner M, Garner P. When trial authors write Cochrane Reviews: competing interests need to be better managed. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;9:ED000089.
43. Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
44. Moher D, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-9. W64.