Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
Beverley Shea,Jeremy M. Grimshaw,George A. Wells,Maarten Boers,Neil Andersson,Candyce Hamel,Ashley C Porter,Peter Tugwell,David Moher,Lex M. Bouter +9 more
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
A measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed that consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews.Abstract:
Our objective was to develop an instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, building upon previous tools, empirical evidence and expert consensus. A 37-item assessment tool was formed by combining 1) the enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), 2) a checklist created by Sacks, and 3) three additional items recently judged to be of methodological importance. This tool was applied to 99 paper-based and 52 electronic systematic reviews. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify underlying components. The results were considered by methodological experts using a nominal group technique aimed at item reduction and design of an assessment tool with face and content validity. The factor analysis identified 11 components. From each component, one item was selected by the nominal group. The resulting instrument was judged to have face and content validity. A measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed. The tool consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Additional studies are needed with a focus on the reproducibility and construct validity of AMSTAR, before strong recommendations can be made on its use.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Systematic review and meta-analysis
TL;DR: In this review the usual methods applied in systematic reviews and meta-analyses are outlined, and the most common procedures for combining studies with binary outcomes are described, illustrating how they can be done using Stata commands.
Journal ArticleDOI
AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both
Beverley Shea,Beverley Shea,Barnaby C Reeves,George A. Wells,Micere Thuku,Candyce Hamel,Julian Moran,David Moher,David Moher,Peter Tugwell,Vivian Welch,Elizabeth Kristjansson,David Henry,David Henry +13 more
TL;DR: This paper reports 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.
Journal ArticleDOI
Antithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report
Clive Kearon,Elie A. Akl,Elie A. Akl,Joseph Ornelas,Allen J. Blaivas,David Jiménez,Henri Bounameaux,Menno V. Huisman,Christopher S. King,Timothy A. Morris,Namita Sood,Scott M. Stevens,Janine R.E. Vintch,Philip S. Wells,Scott C. Woller,Lisa K. Moores +15 more
TL;DR: Recommendations on 12 topics that were in the 9th edition of these guidelines are updated, and 3 new topics are addressed.
Journal ArticleDOI
International ERS/ATS guidelines on definition, evaluation and treatment of severe asthma
Kian Fan Chung,Sally E. Wenzel,Jan Brozek,Andrew Bush,Mario Castro,Peter J. Sterk,Ian M. Adcock,Eric D. Bateman,Elisabeth H. Bel,Eugene R. Bleecker,Louis-Philippe Boulet,Christopher E. Brightling,Pascal Chanez,Sven-Erik Dahlén,Ratko Djukanovic,Urs Frey,Mina Gaga,Peter G. Gibson,Qutayba Hamid,Nizar N. Jajour,Thais Mauad,Ronald L. Sorkness,W. Gerald Teague +22 more
TL;DR: Recommendations and guidelines on the evaluation and treatment of severe asthma in children and adults and coordinated research efforts for improved phenotyping will provide safe and effective biomarker-driven approaches to severe asthma therapy are provided.
Journal ArticleDOI
AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
Beverley Shea,Candyce Hamel,George A. Wells,Lex M. Bouter,Elizabeth Kristjansson,Jeremy M. Grimshaw,David Henry,Maarten Boers +7 more
TL;DR: AMSTAR has good agreement, reliability, construct validity, and feasibility, and these findings need confirmation by a broader range of assessors and a more diverse range of reviews.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials : is blinding necessary?
Alejandro R. Jadad,R. A. Moore,Dawn Carroll,C. Jenkinson,David Reynolds,David J. Gavaghan,Henry J McQuay +6 more
TL;DR: An instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research is described and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality is described.
Book
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose three basic concepts: devising the items, selecting the items and selecting the responses, from items to scales, reliability and validity of the responses.
Journal ArticleDOI
The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.
Sara H. Downs,Nick Black +1 more
TL;DR: It is shown that it is feasible to develop a checklist that can be used to assess the methodological quality not only of randomised controlled trials but also non-randomised studies and it is possible to produce a Checklist that provides a profile of the paper, alerting reviewers to its particular methodological strengths and weaknesses.
Book
An easy guide to factor analysis
TL;DR: The use and Abuse of Factor Analysis in Research References Index is illustrated with examples from Personality Tests and a comparison of the use and abuse of factor analysis in the context of clinical trials.
Book
Systematic Reviews in Health Care : Meta-Analysis in Context
TL;DR: The second edition of this best-selling book has been thoroughly revised and expanded to reflect the significant changes and advances made in systematic reviewing.