The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 91, Issue , 2017, Pages 121-128

  Bühn, Stefanie ^a   Mathes, Tim ^a   Prengel, Peggy ^a   Wegewitz, Uta ^b   Ostermann, Thomas ^a   Robens, Sibylle ^a   Pieper, Dawid ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

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

Author keywords

AMSTAR; Risk of bias; ROBIS; Systematic reviews; Validation

Indexed keywords

A MEASUREMENT TOOL TO ASSESS SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ARTICLE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; EXPERIENCE; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; MATHEMATICAL AND STATISTICAL PROCEDURES; MEDLINE; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VALIDATION STUDY; LITERATURE; REPRODUCIBILITY;

BIAS; HUMANS; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85027682663     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.019     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Oxman, A.D., Guyatt, G.H., Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 44 (1991), 1271–1278.
2. Shea, B.J., Grimshaw, J.M., Wells, G.A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 7, 2007, 10.
3. Pieper, D., Buechter, R., Jerinic, P., Eikermann, M., Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 65 (2012), 1267–1273.
4. Hartling, L., Chisholm, A., Thomson, D., Dryden, D.M., A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One, 7, 2012, e49667.
5. Pieper, D., Buechter, R.B., Li, L., Prediger, B., Eikermann, M., Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol 68 (2015), 574–583.
6. Shea, B.J., Hamel, C., Wells, G.A., Bouter, L.M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 1013–1020.
7. Burda, B.U., Holmer, H.K., Norris, S.L., Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement. Syst Rev, 5(1), 2016, 58.
8. Faggion, C.M. Jr., Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol, 15, 2015, 63.
9. Wegewitz, U., Weikert, B., Fishta, A., Jacobs, A., Pieper, D., Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: what can (should) be made better?. BMC Med Res Methodol, 16, 2016, 111.
10. Fu, R., Gartlehner, G., Grant, M., Shamliyan, T., Sedrakyan, A., Wilt, T.J., et al. Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health care program. Rockville, MD. 2008.
11. Whiting, P.F., Rutjes, A.W., Westwood, M.E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J.J., Reitsma, J.B., et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155 (2011), 529–536.
12. Sterne, J.A., Hernan, M.A., Reeves, B.C., Savovic, J., Berkman, N.D., Viswanathan, M., et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ, 355, 2016, i4919.
13. Whiting, P., Savović, J., Higgins, J.P., Caldwell, D.M., Reeves, B.C., Shea, B., et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 69 (2016), 225–234.
14. Whiting P, et al. Evidence to inform the development of ROBIS,a new tool to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews. September 2013; Available from: http://www.robis-tool.info [accessed 20.07.2016].
15. Popovich, I., Windsor, B., Jordan, V., Showell, M., Shea, B., Farquhar, C.M., Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches. PLoS One, 7, 2012, e50403.
16. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, 2009, b2535.
17. N.N. 2015 [06.06.2016]; Available from: http://www.amstar.ca/Developments.php.
18. Fleiss, J.L., Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76:5 (1971), 378–382.
19. Whiting, P., Savović, J., The rationale for rating risk of bias should be fully reported: response. J Clin Epidemiol, 76, 2016, 239.
20. Fleiss, J.L., Levin, B., Paik, M.C., The measurement of interrater agreement statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2003, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, New Jersey, 598–626.
21. Landis, J.R., Koch, G.G., The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 (1977), 159–174.
22. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Version 5.1.0. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration, Hoboken, New Jersey.
23. Institute of Medicine (IOM). IOM: Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. 2011, Institue of Medicine Available at http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews.aspx.
24. Berkman, N.D., Lohr, K.N., Ansari, M., McDonagh, M., Balk, E., Whitlock, E., 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, Rockville, MD. 2008.
25. Jamilian, A., Cannavale, R., Piancino, M.G., Eslami, S., Perillo, L., Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion: overview of systematic reviews. J Orthod 43 (2016), 102–120.
26. Laver, K., Dyer, S., Whitehead, C., Clemson, L., Crotty, M., Interventions to delay functional decline in people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMJ Open, 6(4), 2016, e010767.
27. Zhang, Q., Liu, F., Xiao, Z., Li, Z., Wang, B., Dong, J., et al. Internal versus external fixation for the treatment of distal radial fractures: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Medicine, 95(9), 2016, e2945.
28. Gwet, K.L., Handbook of inter-rater reliability, 4th edition: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters: advanced analytics. 2014, LLC, Gaithersburg, MD.
29. Juni, P., Witschi, A., Bloch, R., Egger, M., The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282 (1999), 1054–1060.