Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28335734›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017

Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.

Michelle Pollock, Ricardo M Fernandes, Lisa Hartling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 11 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Frontiers in nutrition · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Medication adherence interventions and outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2019
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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 · 2024
    Review
  18. Using Non-Violent Discipline Tools: Evidence Suggesting the Importance of Attunement.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  19. Review
  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.

Michelle PollockAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Ricardo M FernandesClinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Lisa HartlingAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. hartling@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8341-3991

Funding

CIHR 119373
6 · The paper itself

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

Decision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineTreatment OutcomeHumansQuality of Health CareReproducibility of ResultsBiasKnowledge synthesisMethodological qualityObserver agreementOverview of reviewsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28335734
PMCPMC5364717

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.