Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42740745›Full record

ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2025

Comparison between two tools assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews: ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2.

Manuel Marques-Cruz, Paula Perestrelo, Alexandro W L Chu, Sara Gil-Mata, Pau Riera-Serra, Bernardo Sousa-Pinto

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Manuel Marques-CruzMEDCIDS-Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences; Faculty of Medicine University of Porto Porto Portugal.
Paula PerestreloMEDCIDS-Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences; Faculty of Medicine University of Porto Porto Portugal.
Alexandro W L ChuDepartment of Medicine McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0201-2630
Sara Gil-MataMEDCIDS-Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences; Faculty of Medicine University of Porto Porto Portugal.
Pau Riera-SerraHealth Research Institute of the Balearic Islands (IdISBa) Son Espases University Hospital Palma Spain.
Bernardo Sousa-PintoMEDCIDS-Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences; Faculty of Medicine University of Porto Porto Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1277-3401

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several tools are available for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The ReMarQ tool - centred on the assessment of the reporting methodological quality of systematic reviews - comprises 26 dichotomous items and does not require clinical or background knowledge of the review topic for its application. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of evaluating the methodological quality of systematic reviews using ReMarQ and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. We assessed a sample of randomly selected systematic reviews published in medical journals using ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2. We calculated the correlation and agreement between the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ and the number of (i) fulfilled and (ii) fulfilled or partially fulfilled items according to AMSTAR 2. We assessed 51 systematic reviews using both tools. The number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ was strongly correlated with the number of fulfilled items (

Indexed as

AMSTARmethodological qualityReMarQsystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID42740745
PMCPMC13563330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.