Javascript must be enabled to continue!
User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary
View through CrossRef
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.
Summary
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 registration
Not applicable.
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Title: User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary
Description:
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.
Summary
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 registration
Not applicable.
Related Results
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED]Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies ==❱❱ Huge Discounts:[HURRY UP ] Absolute Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies (Available)Order Online Only!! ❰❰= https://www.facebook.com/Keanu-Reeves-CBD-G...
Digital Mental Health Landscaping in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Digital Mental Health Landscaping in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Introduction
The aim of this project was to map the landscape of who is doing what and where in digital mental health, and to pr...
The application of AMSTAR 2 in overviews of systematic reviews shows a need for improvement
The application of AMSTAR 2 in overviews of systematic reviews shows a need for improvement
Abstract
Background
Overviews of systematic reviews (SR) summarise and appraise the quality of research relevant for evidence-ba...
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most...
Perceptions of Telemedicine and Rural Healthcare Access in a Developing Country: A Case Study of Bayelsa State, Nigeria
Perceptions of Telemedicine and Rural Healthcare Access in a Developing Country: A Case Study of Bayelsa State, Nigeria
Abstract
Introduction
Telemedicine is the remote delivery of healthcare services using information and communication technologies and has gained global recognition as a solution to...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical activi...
Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods
Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods
Abstract
The search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions ...
Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review
Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review
BackgroundSystematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The complet...

