A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool

Lorenz, Robert C.; Matthias, Katja; Pieper, Dawid; Wegewitz, Uta; Morche, Johannes; Nocon, Marc; Rissling, Olesja; Schirm, Jacqueline; Jacobs, Annelies

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.028

Cited by 151 publications

(158 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It allows a more detailed evaluation of SR and a rating of the overall confidence in the results of the review. The original publication of AMSTAR 2 showed a moderate to substantial inter-rater reliability (IRR) for most items ( Shea et al., 2017 ), which was confirmed by other publications ( Lorenz et al., 2019 ; Pieper et al., 2019 ) and can be seen as a valid instrument for assessing the methodological quality of SRs.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…The relevant data were extracted onto a data collection template in Excel (Microsoft Excel 2016, Microsoft). Consensus was reached according to majority principle ( Lorenz et al., 2019 ): in case of an ambiguous result, the judgement of the most experienced rater in each group was taken as final judgement. These cases occurred in 10.4% (106 of 1020) of all ratings ( Lorenz et al., 2019 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study

Matthias

Rissling

Pieper

et al. 2020

Heliyon

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Several standards have been developed to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). One widely used tool is the AMSTAR. A recent update - AMSTAR 2 - is a 16 item evaluation tool that enables a detailed assessment of SR that include randomised (RCT) or non-randomised studies (NRS) of healthcare interventions. Methods A cross-sectional study of SR on pharmacological or psychological interventions in major depression in adults was conducted. SR published during 2012–2017 were sampled from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of SR. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Potential predictive factors associated with quality were examined. Results In rating overall confidence in the results of 60 SR four reviews were rated “high”, two were “moderate”, one was “low” and 53 were “critically low”. The mean AMSTAR 2 percentage score was 45.3% (standard deviation 22.6%) in a wide range from 7.1% to 93.8%. Predictors of higher quality were: type of review (higher quality in Cochrane Reviews), SR including only randomized trials and higher journal impact factor. Limitations AMSTAR 2 is not intended to be used for the generation of a percentage score. Conclusions According to AMSTAR 2 the overall methodological quality of SR on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement. Although there is a high need for summarized information in the field of mental health, this work demonstrates the need to critically assess SR before using their findings. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines for SR is needed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study

Matthias

Rissling

Pieper

et al. 2020

Heliyon

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…. The emerging differences in assessments have become a pretext for further research to compare the AMSTAR/AMSTAR 2 and the ROBIS tools . A study published in December 2018, based on the assessment of 30 SR of RCT and non‐RCT, showed a strong correlation in the evaluation of the methodological quality using the AMSTAR 2 and the ROBIS tools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS

Storman

Jasińska

et al. 2020

Obesity Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary High‐quality systematic reviews (SR) and meta‐analyses (MA) are considered to be reliable sources of information. This study aims to assess the quality of studies published as SR or MA in the field of bariatrics in 2016 and 2017. We identified SR and MA in the field of bariatrics by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Eligible studies were those identified as SR/MA in the title/abstract, which aimed to assess any outcome in patients with morbid obesity undergoing or scheduled to undergo bariatric surgery. Two authors independently reviewed all titles and abstracts, assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies, and assessed the quality of included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer. We evaluated the quality and risk of bias of each SR/MA using AMSTAR 2 checklist and ROBIS tool, respectively. Seventy‐eight of 4236 references met inclusion criteria and were assessed for their quality/risk of bias. The methodological quality of 99% of all papers was classified as “critically low.” A total of 6% of the studies were at low risk of bias, and 78% were assessed as being at high risk of bias. The methodological quality of studies published in 2016 and 2017 as SR/MA is highly unsatisfactory.

show abstract

“…Leclercq et al reported in their letter about the methodological quality of 206 meta-analyses published in psychology and related fields by applying AMSTAR and AMSTAR 2. The authors investigated the inter-rater reliability and construct validity and found results comparable to our recently published article [1], which focused on systematic reviews (SRs) of therapy of adult depression. Thus, the presented results by Leclercq et al supported our findings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 74%

AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacking discriminating capacity or requirement of high methodological quality?

Lorenz

Matthias

Pieper

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool

Cited by 151 publications

References 23 publications

The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study

The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS

AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacking discriminating capacity or requirement of high methodological quality?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About