Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27072548›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2016

Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement.

Brittany U Burda, Haley K Holmer, Susan L Norris

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Physiotherapy Canada. Physiotherapie Canada · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Brittany U BurdaKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, 3800 N. Interstate Ave, Portland, OR, 97227, USA. brittany.u.burda@gmail.com.
Haley K HolmerOregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR, 97239, USA.
Susan L NorrisWorld Health Organization, Av. Appia 20, CH-1211, Geneva, 27, Switzerland.

Funding

Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline DevelopmentR01HS018500 · AHRQ · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI NORRIS, SUSAN LEE · 2009 to 2010
$610k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS018500World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is a commonly used tool to assess the quality of systematic reviews; however, modifications are needed to improve its usability, reliability, and validity. In this commentary, we summarize our experience and the experiences of others who have used AMSTAR and provide suggestions for its improvement. We propose that AMSTAR should modify a number of individual items and their instructions and responses to make them more congruent with an assessment of the methodologic quality of systematic reviews. We recommend adding new items and modifying existing items to assess the quality of the body of evidence and to address subgroup and sensitivity analyses. More detailed instructions are needed for scoring individual items across multiple reviewers, and we recommend that a total score should not be calculated. These suggestions need to be empirically tested prior to implementation.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicData AccuracyGuidelines as TopicPublication BiasResearch DesignQuality assessmentRisk of biasSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27072548
PMCPMC4830078

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.