ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017
Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
42 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews on Treatments for Gastric Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.Digestive surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Magnetic stimulation in the treatment of female urgency urinary incontinence: a systematic review.International urogynecology journal · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Reporting and methodological quality of systematic literature reviews evaluating the associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors: a systematic quality review.Harm reduction journal · 2021Pooled it
- Non-genetic risk and protective factors and biomarkers for neurological disorders: a meta-umbrella systematic review of umbrella reviews.BMC medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Understanding the training and education needs of homecare workers supporting people with dementia and cancer: A systematic review of reviews.Dementia (London, England) · 2020Pooled it
- Understanding and Measuring the Wellbeing of Carers of People With Dementia.The Gerontologist · 2019Pooled it
- Pharmacological treatments for patients with irritable bowel syndrome: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Medication adherence interventions and outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- An overview of systematic reviews on the collaboration between physicians and nurses and the impact on patient outcomes: what can we learn in primary care?BMC family practice · 2017Pooled it
- Palliative care and end-of-life quality indicators in critical patients in ICU: systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Using a Large Language Model (ChatGPT-4o) to Assess the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Medical Interventions: Interrater Agreement With Human Reviewers.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- eHealth tools to improve the health-related quality of life of family caregivers of cancer patients in developing countries: a systematic review protocol.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Review
- Summary of Evidence on Nutritional Management for Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Summary of evidence on comprehensive healthcare for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Review
- Using Non-Violent Discipline Tools: Evidence Suggesting the Importance of Attunement.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOverviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. It is recommended that authors assess and report the methodological quality of SRs in overviews-for example, using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Currently, there is variation in whether and how overview authors assess and report SR quality, and limited guidance is available. Our objectives were to: examine methodological considerations involved in using AMSTAR to assess the quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs in overviews of healthcare interventions; identify challenges (and develop potential decision rules) when using AMSTAR in overviews; and examine the potential impact of considering methodological quality when making inclusion decisions in overviews.
methodsWe selected seven overviews of healthcare interventions and included all SRs meeting each overview's inclusion criteria. For each SR, two reviewers independently conducted AMSTAR assessments with consensus and discussed challenges encountered. We also examined the correlation between AMSTAR assessments and SR results/conclusions.
resultsNinety-five SRs were included (30 Cochrane, 65 non-Cochrane). Mean AMSTAR assessments (9.6/11 vs. 5.5/11; p < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (AC1 statistic: 0.84 vs. 0.69; "almost perfect" vs. "substantial" using the Landis & Koch criteria) were higher for Cochrane compared to non-Cochrane SRs. Four challenges were identified when applying AMSTAR in overviews: the scope of the SRs and overviews often differed; SRs examining similar topics sometimes made different methodological decisions; reporting of non-Cochrane SRs was sometimes poor; and some non-Cochrane SRs included other SRs as well as primary studies. Decision rules were developed to address each challenge. We found no evidence that AMSTAR assessments were correlated with SR results/conclusions.
conclusionsResults indicate that the AMSTAR tool can be used successfully in overviews that include Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, though decision rules may be useful to circumvent common challenges. Findings support existing recommendations that quality assessments of SRs in overviews be conducted independently, in duplicate, with a process for consensus. Results also suggest that using methodological quality to guide inclusion decisions (e.g., to exclude poorly conducted and reported SRs) may not introduce bias into the overview process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.