Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36927334›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023

User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary.

Karina Karolina De Santis, Dawid Pieper, Robert C Lorenz, Uta Wegewitz, Waldemar Siemens, Katja Matthias

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

6 authors.

Karina Karolina De Santis *Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS GmbH, Bremen, Germany.
Dawid PieperBrandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane (MHB), Center for Health Services Research (ZVF-BB), Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Robert C LorenzLise Meitner Group for Environmental Neuroscience, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Uta WegewitzFederal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), Division 3 Work and Health, Berlin, Germany.
Waldemar SiemensFaculty of Medicine, Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Katja Matthias *Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Applied Sciences Stralsund, Stralsund, Germany. katja.matthias@hochschule-stralsund.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2' (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating of the individual items and the application of AMSTAR 2 from the user perspective. DISCUSSION: A group of six experienced users (methodologists working in different clinical fields for at least 10 years) identified and discussed the challenges in rating of each item and the general use of AMSTAR 2 to appraise SRs. A group discussion was used to develop recommendations on how users could deal with the identified challenges. We identified various challenges with the content of items 2-16 and with the derivation of the overall confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2. These challenges include the need (1) to provide additional definitions (e.g., what constitutes major deviations from SR protocol on item 2), (2) to choose a rating strategy for multiple conditions on single items (e.g., how to rate item 5 if studies were selected in duplicate, but consensus between two authors was not reported), and (3) to determine rules for deriving the confidence ratings (e.g., what items are critical for such ratings). Based on these challenges we formulated specific recommendations for items 2-16 that AMSTAR 2 users could consider before applying the tool. Our commentary adds to the existing literature by providing the first in-depth examination of the AMSTAR 2 tool from the user perspective. The identified challenges could be addressed by additional decision rules including definitions for ambiguous items and guidance for rating of complex items and derivation of confidence ratings. We recommend that a team consensus regarding such decision rules is required before appraisal procedure begins.

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineHumansReproducibility of ResultsAMSTAR 2Confidence ratingEvidence appraisalSystematic review (SR)

Identifiers

PMID36927334
PMCPMC10018966

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read1
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.