ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018
Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Screening for in vitro systematic reviews: a comparison of screening methods and training of a machine learning classifier.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluating the Accuracy of Large Language Models in Risk-of-Bias Assessment Using Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials: Exploratory Feasibility Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Best Evidence Summary on Early Exercise for Prevention of ICU-Acquired Weakness: An Evidence-Based Synthesis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- 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
- Summary of the best evidence for the prevention and management of myasthenic crisis after thymectomy.Gland surgery · 2024Review
- Pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Thirty-year survey of bibliometrics used in the research literature of pain: Analysis, evolution, and pitfalls.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Review
- Effectiveness of Technology Interventions in Addressing Social Isolation, Connectedness, and Loneliness in Older Adults: Systematic Umbrella Review.JMIR aging · 2022Review
- Trends in Level of Evidence of Systematic Reviews in Sports Medicine, 2010-2020 : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Review
- Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Article
- Performance of conceptual framework elements for the retrieval of qualitative health literature: a case study.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- Methodological steps used by authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) in the field of neuropathic pain (NeuP) are increasingly important for decision-making. However, methodological flaws in SRs can reduce the validity of conclusions. Hence, it is important to assess the methodological quality of NeuP SRs critically. Additionally, it remains unclear which assessment tool should be used. We studied the methodological quality of SRs published in the field of NeuP and compared two assessment tools.
methodsWe systematically searched 5 electronic databases to identify SRs of randomized controlled trials of interventions for NeuP available up to March 2015. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR) tools. The scores were converted to percentiles and ranked into 4 grades to allow comparison between the two checklists. Gwet's AC1 coefficient was used for interrater reliability assessment.
resultsThe 97 included SRs had a wide range of methodological quality scores (AMSTAR median (IQR): 6 (5-8) vs. R-AMSTAR median (IQR): 30 (26-35)). The overall agreement score between the 2 raters was 0.62 (95% CI 0.39-0.86) for AMSTAR and 0.62 (95% CI 0.53-0.70) for R-AMSTAR. The 31 Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) were consistently ranked higher than the 66 non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCSRs). The analysis of individual domains showed the best compliance in a comprehensive literature search (item 3) on both checklists. The results for the domain that was the least compliant differed: conflict of interest (item 11) was the item most poorly reported on AMSTAR vs. publication bias assessment (item 10) on R-AMSTAR. A high positive correlation between the total AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR scores for all SRs, as well as for CSRs and NCSRs, was observed.
conclusionsThe methodological quality of analyzed SRs in the field of NeuP was not optimal, and CSRs had a higher quality than NCSRs. Both AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools produced comparable quality ratings. Our results point out to weaknesses in the methodology of existing SRs on interventions for the management NeuP and call for future improvement by better adherence to analyzed quality checklists, either AMSTAR or R-AMSTAR.
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.