How is AMSTAR applied by authors – a call for better reporting

Autor: Dawid Pieper, Nadja Koensgen, Jessica Breuing, Long Ge, Uta Wegewitz
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2018
Předmět:
Zdroj: BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol 18, Iss 1, Pp 1-7 (2018)
Druh dokumentu: article
ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0520-z
Popis: Abstract Background The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool is widely used for investigating the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). Originally, AMSTAR was developed for SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Its applicability to SRs of other study designs remains unclear. Our objectives were to: 1) analyze how AMSTAR is applied by authors and (2) analyze whether the authors pay attention to the original purpose of AMSTAR and for what it has been validated. Methods We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from inception through October 2016 to identify studies that applied AMSTAR. Full-text studies were sought for all retrieved hits and screened by one reviewer. A second reviewer verified the excluded studies (liberal acceleration). Data were extracted into structured tables by one reviewer and were checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies at any stage were resolved by consensus or by consulting a third person. We analyzed the data descriptively as frequencies or medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). Associations were quantified using the risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence intervals. Results We identified 247 studies. They included a median of 17 reviews (interquartile range (IQR): 8 to 47) per study. AMSTAR was modified in 23% (57/247) of studies. In most studies, an AMSTAR score was calculated (200/247; 81%). Methods for calculating an AMSTAR score varied, with summing up all yes answers (yes = 1) being the most frequent option (102/200; 51%). More than one third of the authors failed to report how the AMSTAR score was obtained (71/200; 36%). In a subgroup analysis, we compared overviews of reviews (n = 154) with the methodological publications (n = 93). The overviews of reviews were much less likely to mention both limitations with respect to study designs (if other studies other than RCTs were included in the reviews) (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75) and overall score (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.35). Conclusions Authors, peer reviewers, and editors should pay more attention to the correct use and reporting of assessment tools in evidence synthesis. Authors of overviews of reviews should ensure to have a methodological expert in their review team.
Databáze: Directory of Open Access Journals
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje