ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023
User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Open Surgical Versus Endovascular Repair for Type B Aortic Dissection: Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis.Angiology · 2026Pooled it
- Public health policies and interventions to address health inequities in high-income countries: an umbrella review.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews on Treatments for Gastric Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.Digestive surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Sex/gender differences in the association between behavioural factors and cancers: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with quantitative synthesis.Biology of sex differences · 2025Pooled it
- Digital Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Interventions for Community-Living Adults: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Literature Review on Inflammatory Markers in the Saliva of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Cause or a Consequence of Periodontal Diseases.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Pooled it
- The Effectiveness of Probiotics in Psoriasis: An Umbrella Review.Journal of nutrition and metabolism · 2026Article
- A Critical Appraisal of Reporting Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Addressing Knee Chondral Defects.Cartilage · 2025Article
- Self-care practice and associated factors among hypertensive patients in Ethiopia: Umbrella review of systematic review and meta-analysis studies.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Review
- The Use of Hyaluronic Acid in the Non-Surgical Treatment of Periodontitis-An Umbrella Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews led by Peruvian authors: A scoping review.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.