Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29914386›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018

How is AMSTAR applied by authors - a call for better reporting.

Dawid Pieper, Nadja Koensgen, Jessica Breuing, Long Ge, Uta Wegewitz

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 26 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

5 authors.

Dawid PieperInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany. dawid.pieper@uni-wh.de.
Nadja KoensgenInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Jessica BreuingInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Long GeThe First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Uta WegewitzFederal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Nöldnerstr. 40-42, 10317, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool is widely used for investigating the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). Originally, AMSTAR was developed for SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Its applicability to SRs of other study designs remains unclear. Our objectives were to: 1) analyze how AMSTAR is applied by authors and (2) analyze whether the authors pay attention to the original purpose of AMSTAR and for what it has been validated.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from inception through October 2016 to identify studies that applied AMSTAR. Full-text studies were sought for all retrieved hits and screened by one reviewer. A second reviewer verified the excluded studies (liberal acceleration). Data were extracted into structured tables by one reviewer and were checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies at any stage were resolved by consensus or by consulting a third person. We analyzed the data descriptively as frequencies or medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). Associations were quantified using the risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence intervals.

resultsWe identified 247 studies. They included a median of 17 reviews (interquartile range (IQR): 8 to 47) per study. AMSTAR was modified in 23% (57/247) of studies. In most studies, an AMSTAR score was calculated (200/247; 81%). Methods for calculating an AMSTAR score varied, with summing up all yes answers (yes = 1) being the most frequent option (102/200; 51%). More than one third of the authors failed to report how the AMSTAR score was obtained (71/200; 36%). In a subgroup analysis, we compared overviews of reviews (n = 154) with the methodological publications (n = 93). The overviews of reviews were much less likely to mention both limitations with respect to study designs (if other studies other than RCTs were included in the reviews) (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75) and overall score (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.35).

conclusionsAuthors, peer reviewers, and editors should pay more attention to the correct use and reporting of assessment tools in evidence synthesis. Authors of overviews of reviews should ensure to have a methodological expert in their review team.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicChecklistHumansPeer ReviewResearch DesignResearch ReportAMSTARMethodological studyQuality assessmentReportingSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29914386
PMCPMC6006845

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.