Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18159233›Full record

ArticlePloS one2007

External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR).

Beverley J Shea, Lex M Bouter, Joan Peterson, Maarten Boers, Neil Andersson, Zulma Ortiz, Tim Ramsay, Annie Bai, Vijay K Shukla, Jeremy M Grimshaw

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 208 papers, 81 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
208citing papers in PubMed, 81 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

208 citing papers in PubMed, 81 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Factors associated with response to patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of systematic and scoping reviews, and meta-analyses.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Psychological Contract Breach and Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Reviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

148 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Beverley J SheaCommunity Information and Epidemiological Technologies, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. bshea@ciet.org
Lex M Bouter
Joan Peterson
Maarten Boers
Neil Andersson
Zulma Ortiz
Tim Ramsay
Annie Bai
Vijay K Shukla
Jeremy M Grimshaw

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews. METHODOLOGY: AMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently.

conclusionsThe sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearson's R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearson's R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were -0.19+/-1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 'AMSTAR points'. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicGastric AcidGastroesophageal RefluxHumansPeptic UlcerReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID18159233
PMCPMC2131785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.