ArticleBMC medical research methodology2022
Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 8 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The safety, acceptability, and effectiveness of home-based 'exercise snacking' for improving physical function of older adults: a systematic review.European geriatric medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Factors associated with response to patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of systematic and scoping reviews, and meta-analyses.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of Treatment on the Health-Related Quality of Life of Children with Cancer in Saudi Arabia.Saudi medical journal · 2026Pooled it
- The presence of spin is commonly found in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
- Updates on digital mental health interventions for children and young people: systematic overview of reviews.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Exercise interventions for patients with heart failure: an evidence map.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Pooled it
- The effect of probiotics on gestational diabetes mellitus: an umbrella meta-analysis.BMC endocrine disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of modular versus monoblock stems in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2023Pooled it
- Exploring the methodological quality and risk of bias in 200 systematic reviews: A comparative study of ROBIS and AMSTAR-2 tools.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Assessing the methodologic quality of systematic reviews using generative large language models.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Article
- Evidence-Based Critical Assessment of the Success Rate of Dental Implants in Smokers: An Umbrella Systematic Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Exploring the therapeutic potential of tDCS, TMS and DBS in overcoming tobacco use disorder: an umbrella review.AIMS neuroscience · 2024Review
- Theoretical Schemas to Guide Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) Chronic Low Back Pain Clinical Research.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2023Review
- Quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of vesiculobullous skin diseases. A meta-epidemiological study.Anais brasileiros de dermatologiaArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2007, AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs), was published, and it has since become one of the most widely used instruments for SR appraisal. In September 2017, AMSTAR 2 was published as an updated version of the tool. This mixed-methods study aimed to analyze the extent of the AMSTAR 2 uptake and explore potential barriers to its uptake.
methodsWe analyzed the frequency of AMSTAR or AMSTAR 2 use in articles published in 2018, 2019 and 2020. We surveyed authors who have used AMSTAR but not AMSTAR 2 in the analyzed time frame to identify their reasons and barriers. The inclusion criterion for those authors was that the month of manuscript submission was after September 2017, i.e. after AMSTAR 2 was published.
resultsWe included 871 studies. The majority (N = 451; 52%) used AMSTAR 2, while 44% (N = 382) used AMSTAR, 4% (N = 31) used R-AMSTAR and others used a combination of tools. In 2018, 81% of the analyzed studies used AMSTAR, while 16% used AMSTAR 2. In 2019, 52% used AMSTAR, while 44% used AMSTAR 2. Among articles published in 2020, 28% used AMSTAR, while AMSTAR 2 was used by 69%. An author survey indicated that the authors did not use AMSTAR 2 mostly because they were not aware of it, their protocol was already established, or data collection completed at the time when the new tool was published. Barriers towards AMSTAR 2 use were lack of quantitative assessment, insufficient awareness, length, difficulties with a specific item.
conclusionIn articles published in 2018-2020, that were submitted to a journal after AMSTAR 2 tool was published, almost half of the authors (44%) still used AMSTAR, the old version of the tool. However, the use of AMSTAR has been declining in each subsequent year. Our survey indicated that editors and peer-reviewers did not ask the authors to use the new version of the tool. Few barriers towards using AMSTAR 2 were identified, and thus it is anticipated that the use of the old version of AMSTAR will continue to decline.
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.