Best-worst scaling identified adequate statistical methods and literature search as the most important items of AMSTAR2 (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews).

Published on Dec 1, 2020in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology6.437
· DOI :10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2020.08.011
Victoria Leclercq5
Estimated H-index: 5
(PHRI: Public Health Research Institute),
Mickaël Hiligsmann31
Estimated H-index: 31
(PHRI: Public Health Research Institute)
+ 3 AuthorsOlivier Bruyère84
Estimated H-index: 84
(University of Liège)
Abstract Objective To assess the relative importance of AMSTAR2 items. Study Design and Setting A best-worst scaling object case was conducted among a sample of experts in the field of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA). Respondents were asked in a series of 15 choice tasks to choose the most and the least important item from a set of 4 items from the master list, which included the 16 AMSTAR2 items. Hierarchical Bayes analysis was used to generate the relative importance score (RIS) for each item. Results The most important items highlighted by our 242 experts to conduct overview of reviews and critically assess SR/MA were the appropriateness of statistical analyses and adequacy of the literature search, followed by items regarding the assessment of risk of bias, the research protocol and the assessment of heterogeneity (RIS>6.5). Items related to funding sources and to the assessment of study selection and data extraction in duplicate were rated as least important. Conclusion Although all AMSTAR2 items can be considered as important, our results highlighted the importance of keeping the two items (the appropriateness of statistical analyses and the adequacy of the literature search) among the critical items proposed by AMSTAR2to critically appraise SR/MA.
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
#1Michelle Gates (U of A: University of Alberta)H-Index: 9
#2Allison Gates (U of A: University of Alberta)H-Index: 12
Last. Lisa Hartling (U of A: University of Alberta)H-Index: 77
view all 10 authors...
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interrater and inter-centre reliability, usability, and utility of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective evaluation using 30 systematic reviews of randomized trials, undertaken at three international centres. RESULTS: Reviewers completed AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS in median (IQR) 15.7 (11.3), 19.7 (12.1), and 28.7 (17.4) minutes, and reached consensus in 2.6 (3.2), 4.6 (5.3), and 10.9 (10.8) minutes, respectively. Across all centres, inter...
#1Gerald Gartlehner (UNC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)H-Index: 59
#2Lisa Affengruber (Danube University Krems)H-Index: 7
Last. Franz König (Medical University of Vienna)H-Index: 24
view all 7 authors...
Abstract Objective To determine the accuracy of single-reviewer screening in correctly classifying abstracts as relevant or irrelevant for literature reviews. Study Design and Setting We conducted a crowd-based, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Using the Cochrane Crowd platform, we randomly assigned eligible participants to 100 abstracts each of a pharmacological or a public health topic. After completing a training exercise, participants screened abstracts online based on pre-defined...
#1Victoria Leclercq (University of Liège)H-Index: 5
#2Charlotte Beaudart (University of Liège)H-Index: 27
Last. Olivier Bruyère (University of Liège)H-Index: 84
view all 4 authors...
#1Robert C. Lorenz (University of Potsdam)H-Index: 18
#2Katja MatthiasH-Index: 3
Last. Anja JacobsH-Index: 6
view all 9 authors...
Abstract Objectives The objectives of this study were to determine the interrater reliability (IRR) of assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 for reviews of pharmacological or psychological interventions for the treatment of major depression, to compare it to that of AMSTAR and risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS), and to assess the convergent validity between the appraisal tools. Study Design and Setting Two groups of four raters were each assigned one of two samples of 30 s...
#1Kei Long Cheung (PHRI: Public Health Research Institute)H-Index: 11
#2Susanne Mayer (Medical University of Vienna)H-Index: 10
Last. Mickaël Hiligsmann (PHRI: Public Health Research Institute)H-Index: 31
view all 7 authors...
AbstractAims: Different methods have been used to analyze “object case” best–worst scaling (BWS). This study aims to compare the most common statistical analysis methods for object case BWS (i.e. the count analysis, multinomial logit, mixed logit, latent class analysis, and hierarchical Bayes estimation) and to analyze their potential advantages and limitations based on an applied example.Methods: Data were analyzed using the five analysis methods. Ranking results were compared among the methods...
#1Dawid Pieper (Witten/Herdecke University)H-Index: 29
#2Livia Puljak (CUA: The Catholic University of America)H-Index: 24
Last. Silvia Minozzi (University of Milan)H-Index: 51
view all 4 authors...
Abstract Objective To compare A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) with a tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) in terms of validity, reliability, and applicability. Study Design and Setting We analyzed 30 systematic reviews (SRs) that included randomized and nonrandomized studies, with Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs sampled in 1:1 ratio. Four reviewers assessed independently all 30 SRs with AMSTAR 2, followed by ROBIS. We calculated Fleiss’ Kappa as a me...
#1Reid Robson (St. Michael's Hospital)H-Index: 8
#2Ba' Pham (St. Michael's Hospital)H-Index: 28
Last. Andrea C. Tricco (U of T: University of Toronto)H-Index: 63
view all 7 authors...
Abstract Objectives The aim of the article was to identify and summarize studies assessing methodologies for study selection, data abstraction, or quality appraisal in systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting A systematic review was conducted, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 1, 2016. Quality appraisal of included studies was undertaken using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2, and key results on accuracy, reliability...
#1Clovis Mariano Faggion (WWU: University of Münster)H-Index: 14
#2Raquel HuivinH-Index: 1
Last. Marco Antonio AlarcónH-Index: 6
view all 5 authors...
Abstract Objectives To evaluate whether the reporting of search strategies and the primary study selection process in dental systematic reviews is reproducible. Study Design and Setting A survey of systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals from June 2015 to June 2016 was conducted. Study selection was performed independently by two authors, and the reproducibility of the selection process was assessed using a tool consisting of 12 criteria. Regression analyses were implemen...
#1Jessica Gurevitch (SBU: Stony Brook University)H-Index: 55
#2Julia Koricheva (RHUL: Royal Holloway, University of London)H-Index: 69
Last. Gavin B. Stewart (Newcastle University)H-Index: 34
view all 4 authors...
Meta-analysis—the quantitative, scientific synthesis of research results—has been both revolutionary and controversial, with rapid advances and broad implementation resulting in substantial scientific advances, but not without pitfalls.
#1Matthew J. Page (Monash University)H-Index: 42
#2Douglas G. Altman (University of Oxford)H-Index: 273
Last. David Moher (Ottawa Hospital Research Institute)H-Index: 101
view all 10 authors...
Abstract Objectives The objective of the study was to investigate the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) of therapeutic interventions, without restriction by journal, clinical condition, or specialty. Study Design and Setting We evaluated a random sample of SRs assembled previously, which were indexed in MEDLINE® during February 2014, focused on a treatment or prevention question, and reported at least one meta-analysis. The repo...
Cited By2
#1Karina Karolina De Santis (Leibniz Association)
#2Robert C. Lorenz (MPG: Max Planck Society)H-Index: 18
Last. Katja MatthiasH-Index: 4
view all 2 authors...
#1Jakub Ruszkowski (Gdańsk Medical University)H-Index: 5
#2Katarzyna Majkutewicz (Gdańsk Medical University)
Last. Jacek M. Witkowski (Gdańsk Medical University)H-Index: 31
view all 0 authors...
Systematic reviews with meta-analyses (SR/MA) are frequently conducted to investigate clinical efficacy of probiotics. However, only rigorously prepared analyses can serve as the highest level of evidence for a specified research question. We have aimed to determine (1) what is the methodological quality of recent SR/MA conducted to assess the efficacy of probiotics; (2) whether the results of SR/MA have a clinical application; and (3) what are factors associated with better quality and applicab...
#1Kat Kolaski (Wake Forest University)H-Index: 6
#2Lynne Romeiser Logan (State University of New York Upstate Medical University)H-Index: 8
Last. Charlene ButlerH-Index: 9
view all 4 authors...
AIM To evaluate the methodological quality of recent systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy in order to determine the level of confidence in the reviews' conclusions. METHOD A comprehensive search of 22 databases identified eligible systematic reviews with and without meta-analysis published worldwide from 2015 to 2019. We independently extracted data and used A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to appraise methodological quality. RESULTS Ei...
This website uses cookies.
We use cookies to improve your online experience. By continuing to use our website we assume you agree to the placement of these cookies.
To learn more, you can find in our Privacy Policy.