Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32566589›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2020

Use of AMSTAR-2 in the methodological assessment of systematic reviews: protocol for a methodological study.

Cuncun Lu, Tingting Lu, Long Ge, Nan Yang, Peijing Yan, Kehu Yang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 16 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 16 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 16 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Critical Review of the Health Benefits Associated with Chia Seeds (Salvia Hispanica L.).Plant foods for human nutrition (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

Cuncun LuEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Tingting LuEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Long GeEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Nan YangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Peijing YanInstitute of Clinical Research and Evidence Based Medicine, Gansu Provincial Hospital, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Kehu YangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses (MAs) are widely used in resolving questions in various healthcare areas (such as, traditional Chinese medicine, public health and surgery), and they are the cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare. However, the reliability of SRs is typically influenced by their methodological quality. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and AMSTAR-2 tools can assess the methodological quality of SRs, and the use of AMSTAR has been investigated. However, AMSTAR-2 is now widely used to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, but the use of AMSTAR-2 for determining the methodological quality of SRs has not yet been investigated and assessed thoroughly. Thus, we designed the present study to investigate the use of AMSTAR-2 in studies that assessed the methodological quality of a sample of SRs with the AMSTAR-2 and provide references to potential users of AMSTAR-2 tool.

methodsFour commonly used electronic databases including PubMed, EmBase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science will be searched following a comprehensive search strategy to identify and retrieve studies that have used AMSTAR-2 tool for evaluating the methodological quality of SRs. Two independent authors will retrieve bibliometric information and methodological data, including all author names, time of publication, and journal names, whether a specific score value was given for each item, and whether overall quality assessment was performed. Descriptive statistical analyses will be used to present the study results, e.g., frequencies and percentages, mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR). In addition, subgroup analyses will be performed to identify the methodological differences (e.g., the reporting of study designs included in SRs) between overviews and methodological studies. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) will be calculated to measure the methodological differences. Cytoscape 3.7.1 software tool will be used to construct collaboration network maps. Further, Microsoft Office Excel 2016 and Stata 12.0 will be used to manage and analyze data. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will identify any gaps in the use of AMSTAR-2 and important bibliometric features, such as active researchers and journals, provide guidance to researchers in various healthcare areas (such as, traditional Chinese medicine and public health) for using AMSTAR-2 tool and help them in developing cooperation and submitting their manuscripts.

Indexed as

AMSTAR-2healthcarepublic healthqualitysurgerySystematic reviews (SRs)traditional Chinese medicine

Identifiers

PMID32566589
PMCPMC7290613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.