Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22454679›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2012

Reliability and External Validity of AMSTAR in Assessing Quality of TCM Systematic Reviews.

Deying Kang, Yuxia Wu, Dan Hu, Qi Hong, Jialiang Wang, Xin Zhang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Acupuncture for the Postcholecystectomy Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada
    Article
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

6 authors.

Deying KangDepartment of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Yuxia Wu
Dan Hu
Qi Hong
Jialiang Wang
Xin Zhang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective. The aim of this study is to measure the reliability and external validity of AMSTAR by applying it to a sample of TCM systematic reviews. Study Design and Methods. We tested the agreement, reliability, construct validity, and feasibility of AMSTAR through comparisons with OQAQ. Statistical analyses were performed by using SPSS 13.0. Results. A random of sample with 41 TCM systematic reviews was selected from a database. The interrater agreement of the individual items of AMSTAR was moderate with a mean kappa of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.73). The ICC for AMSTAR against OQAQ (total score of 9 items, excluding item 10) was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.93). Conclusions. Although there is room for improvement on few items, the new tool is reliable, valid, and easy to use for methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews on TCM.

Identifiers

PMID22454679
PMCPMC3292204

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.