Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

Shea, Beverley; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Wells, George A.; Boers, Maarten; Andersson, Neil; Hamel, Candyce; Porter, Ashley C; Tugwell, Peter; Moher, David; Bouter, Lex M.

doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10

Cited by 3,565 publications

(2,970 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

2,849

Contrasting

Unclassified

112

Order By: Relevance

“…A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was used to measure the quality of the systematic reviews included in the study. 5 The tool uses 11 yes/no items to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and has been shown to have good inter-rater agreement, test-retest reliability, and face and construct validity. 6 When assessing an individual study, each positive answer is allocated one point.…”

Section: Data Extraction and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Health economics in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs

Stowers

Lemanu

Hill

2014

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program aims to combine and coordinate evidence-based perioperative care interventions that support standardizing and optimizing surgical care. In conjunction with its clinical benefits, it has been suggested that ERAS reduces costs through shorter convalescence and reduced morbidity. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ERAS programs. The aim of this systematic review, therefore, is to evaluate the claims that ERAS is cost-effective and to characterize how these costs were reported and evaluated. Source The electronic databases, MEDLINE Ò and EMBASE TM , were searched from inception to April 2014. Principal findings Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for review. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols in various abdominal surgeries have been investigated, including colorectal, bariatric, gynecological, gastric, pancreatic, esophageal, and vascular surgery. All studies reported cost savings associated with hastening recovery and reducing morbidity and complications. All studies included in this review focused primarily on in-hospital costs, with some attempting to account for readmission costs and follow-up services. In all but two studies, the breakdown of cost data for the individual studies was poorly detailed. Conclusions In conclusion, ERAS protocols appear to be both clinically efficacious and cost effective across a variety of surgical specialties in the short term. Nevertheless, studies reporting out-of-hospital cost data are lacking. Further research is required to determine how best to evaluate both medium-and long-term costs relating to ERAS pathways while taking quality of life data into account. RésuméObjectif Le programme de Récupération rapide après la chirurgie (RRAC) vise à combiner et coordonner des interventions de soins périopératoires basées sur des données probantes qui soutiennent la standardisation et l'optimisation des soins chirurgicaux. En association avec ses avantages cliniques, il a été suggéré que la RRAC réduisait les coûts grâce à une convalescence raccourcie et une moindre morbidité. Néanmoins, peu d'études ont évalué le rapport efficacité-coût des programmes de RRAC. Le but de cette synthèse systématique est donc d'évaluer l'argument de rentabilité de la RRAC et de préciser dans quelle mesure ces coûts ont été rapportés et évalués. Sources Une recherche a été menée dans les bases de données électroniques MEDLINE Ò et EMBASE TM depuis les origines du concept jusqu'en avril 2014. Constatations principales Dix-sept études répondaient aux critères d'inclusion et ont été analysées. Les protocoles de Récupération rapide après la chirurgie concernant différentes interventions chirurgicales abdominales (colorectales, bariatriques, gynécologiques, gastriques, pancréatiques, oesophagiennes et vasculaires) ont été étudiés. Toutes les études rapportaient des économies associées à l'accélération de la récupération et à la réduction de la morbidité et des complications. Tout...

show abstract

Section: Data Extraction and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Health economics in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs

Stowers

Lemanu

Hill

2014

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This stance reflects the raison d’être of the Cochrane Collaboration, whose use of explicit and auditable quality criteria for undertaking systematic reviews has inspired a weighty methodological handbook,3 numerous tools and checklists4, 5 and structured reporting criteria 6. There is strong emphasis on methodological reproducibility, with the implication that a different review team, using the same search criteria, quality checklists and synthesis tools, should obtain the same result 3…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?

Greenhalgh

Thorne

Malterud

2018

Eur J Clin Investigation

580

437

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Das QUADAS-Werkzeug wurde bereits in einem vorherigen Editorial vorgestellt [13], nun möchten wir solch ein Werkzeug für die Beurteilung der methodischen Qualität von systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten und Metaanalysen präsentieren. Während die Einhaltung der ebenfalls bereits vorgestellten PRISMACheckliste ein hohes Maß an Berichtsqualität garantiert [4,14], kann mit dem AMSTAR-Werkzeug die methodische Qualität, also die Art und Weise der Durchführung einer systematischen Über-sichtsarbeit, beurteilt werden [15]. Dieses Editorial möchte somit einen weiteren Beitrag dazu leisten, den Leser über die in der Radiologie wichtigen diagnostischen Studien [16 -20] [26].…”

unclassified

“…Dieses Editorial möchte somit einen weiteren Beitrag dazu leisten, den Leser über die in der Radiologie wichtigen diagnostischen Studien [16 -20] [26]. Nicht englischsprachige Artikel wurden übersetzt und von allen Artikeln wurden die Autoren, Institutionen und das Journal unkenntlich gemacht (Verblindung) [15]. Mithilfe einer explorativen Faktorenanalyse wurden diejenigen Hauptkomponenten, die der 37 Punkte umfassenden Checkliste zugrunde liegen, identifiziert und einer Faktorenrotation ausgesetzt [15].…”

unclassified