The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/358/bmj.j4008.full.pdf

AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

https://www.commed.vcu.edu/Chronic_Disease/2012/cochranrvwrschbias.pdf

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n160.full.pdf

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.

Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Placebo

Patients' Values in Clinical Decision-Making

More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed.

EQUATOR reporting guidelines should also be used by clinicians.

Guided Tissue Regeneration (GTR) With Bioabsorbable Collagen Membranes (CM) May Generate More Clinical Attachment Level Gain Than Open Flap Debridement (OFD)

Clovis Mariano Faggion

Papers

Patients' Values in Clinical Decision-Making

More detailed guidance on the inclusion/exclusion of retracted articles in systematic reviews is needed.

EQUATOR reporting guidelines should also be used by clinicians.

Guided Tissue Regeneration (GTR) With Bioabsorbable Collagen Membranes (CM) May Generate More Clinical Attachment Level Gain Than Open Flap Debridement (OFD)

Risk of bias over time in updates of Cochrane oral health reviews