Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35871099›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2022

AMSTAR 2 appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of heart failure from high-impact journals.

Lin Li, Iriagbonse Asemota, Bolun Liu, Javier Gomez-Valencia, Lifeng Lin, Abdul Wahab Arif, Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, Muhammad Shariq Usman

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 14 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 14 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. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

8 authors.

Lin LiDepartment of Medicine, Cook County Health, Chicago, IL, USA. stellaleelala@gmail.com.
Iriagbonse AsemotaDepartment of Medicine, Cook County Health, Chicago, IL, USA.
Bolun LiuDepartment of Medicine, Cook County Health, Chicago, IL, USA.
Javier Gomez-ValenciaDivision of Cardiology, Cook County Health, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Lifeng LinDepartment of Statistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Abdul Wahab ArifDepartment of Medicine, Cook County Health, Chicago, IL, USA.
Tariq Jamal SiddiqiDepartment of Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Muhammad Shariq UsmanDepartment of Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 is a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of interventions. We aimed to perform the first AMSTAR 2-based quality assessment of heart failure-related studies.

methodsEleven high-impact journals were searched from 2009 to 2019. The included studies were assessed on the basis of 16 domains. Seven domains were deemed critical for high-quality studies. On the basis of the performance in these 16 domains with different weights, overall ratings were generated, and the quality was determined to be "high," "moderate," "low," or "critically low."

resultsEighty-one heart failure-related SRs with MAs were included. Overall, 79 studies were of "critically low quality" and two were of "low quality." These findings were attributed to insufficiency in the following critical domains: a priori protocols (compliance rate, 5%), complete list of exclusions with justification (5%), risk of bias assessment (69%), meta-analysis methodology (78%), and investigation of publication bias (60%).

conclusionsThe low ratings for these potential high-quality heart failure-related SRs and MAs challenge the discrimination capacity of AMSTAR 2. In addition to identifying certain areas of insufficiency, these findings indicate the need to justify or modify AMSTAR 2's rating rules.

Indexed as

Heart FailurePeriodicals as TopicHumansJournal Impact FactorResearch ReportSystematic Reviews as TopicAMSTAR 2Heart failureMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35871099
PMCPMC9308914

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.