Authors should clearly report how they derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2-a cross-sectional study
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
OBJECTIVES: A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (SRs) 2 (AMSTAR 2) allows for deriving the overall confidence in an SR. We investigated how authors derived the overall confidence rating and whether different schemes lead to different results.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We compared three different schemes (original 7-item scheme, a self-developed 5-item scheme, and the AMSTAR Web site) to derive the overall confidence in AMSTAR 2 using two distinct samples of SRs. Multiple bibliographic databases were searched for articles to analyze how AMSTAR 2 was applied by others.
RESULTS: In both samples (n = 60 and n = 58), the Friedman test revealed a significant difference between the schemes (P < 0.001). The Web site scheme was the least strict one, whereas between the 5-item and 7-item scheme, no differences were found in post hoc analyses. We included 53 publications applying AMSTAR 2 identified in our literature search. Only 37 of them (70%) used the original 7-item scheme. Less than half of them (18 of 37) reported how they derived the overall rating.
CONCLUSION: Authors should clearly report how they have derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2. Reporting should allow for reproducing the overall ratings for editors, peer reviewers, and readers.
| Errataetall: |
CommentIn: J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Oct;138:241-242. - PMID 33771573 |
|---|---|
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:129 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of clinical epidemiology - 129(2021) vom: 08. Jan., Seite 97-103 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Pieper, Dawid [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
AMSTAR 2 |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 06.09.2021 Date Revised 18.11.2021 published: Print-Electronic CommentIn: J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Oct;138:241-242. - PMID 33771573 Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.046 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM316189839 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM316189839 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225160539.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.046 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1053.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM316189839 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)33049325 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0895-4356(20)31140-9 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Pieper, Dawid |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Authors should clearly report how they derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2-a cross-sectional study |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 06.09.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 18.11.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a CommentIn: J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Oct;138:241-242. - PMID 33771573 | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVES: A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (SRs) 2 (AMSTAR 2) allows for deriving the overall confidence in an SR. We investigated how authors derived the overall confidence rating and whether different schemes lead to different results | ||
| 520 | |a STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We compared three different schemes (original 7-item scheme, a self-developed 5-item scheme, and the AMSTAR Web site) to derive the overall confidence in AMSTAR 2 using two distinct samples of SRs. Multiple bibliographic databases were searched for articles to analyze how AMSTAR 2 was applied by others | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: In both samples (n = 60 and n = 58), the Friedman test revealed a significant difference between the schemes (P < 0.001). The Web site scheme was the least strict one, whereas between the 5-item and 7-item scheme, no differences were found in post hoc analyses. We included 53 publications applying AMSTAR 2 identified in our literature search. Only 37 of them (70%) used the original 7-item scheme. Less than half of them (18 of 37) reported how they derived the overall rating | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: Authors should clearly report how they have derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2. Reporting should allow for reproducing the overall ratings for editors, peer reviewers, and readers | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a AMSTAR 2 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Methodological quality | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Publishing | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Reporting | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research design | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic reviews | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lorenz, Robert C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rombey, Tanja |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jacobs, Anja |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rissling, Olesja |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Freitag, Simone |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Matthias, Katja |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of clinical epidemiology |d 1991 |g 129(2021) vom: 08. Jan., Seite 97-103 |w (DE-627)NLM012614815 |x 1878-5921 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:129 |g year:2021 |g day:08 |g month:01 |g pages:97-103 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.046 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 129 |j 2021 |b 08 |c 01 |h 97-103 | ||