Dawid Pieper1, Roland Brian Buechter2, Lun Li3, Barbara Prediger4, Michaela Eikermann4. 1. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Department for Evidence-based health services research, Ostmerheimer Str. 200 (building 38), 51109 Cologne, Witten/Herdecke University, Germany. Electronic address: dawid.pieper@uni-wh.de. 2. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Department for Health Information, Mediapark 8 (KölnTurm), 50670 Cologne, Germany. 3. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 199 Donggang West Road, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China. 4. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Department for Evidence-based health services research, Ostmerheimer Str. 200 (building 38), 51109 Cologne, Witten/Herdecke University, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To summarize all available evidence on measurement properties in terms of reliability, validity, and feasibility of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, including R(evised)-AMSTAR. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psycinfo, and CINAHL were searched for studies containing information on measurement properties of the tools in October 2013. We extracted data on study characteristics and measurement properties. These data were analyzed following measurement criteria. RESULTS: We included 13 studies, four of them were labeled as validation studies. Nine articles dealt with AMSTAR, two articles dealt with R-AMSTAR, and one article dealt with both instruments. In terms of interrater reliability, most items showed a substantial agreement (>0.6). The median intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the overall score of AMSTAR was 0.83 (range 0.60-0.98), indicating a high agreement. In terms of validity, ICCs were very high with all but one ICC lower than 0.8 when the AMSTAR score was compared with scores from other tools. Scoring AMSTAR takes between 10 and 20 minutes. CONCLUSION: AMSTAR seems to be reliable and valid. Further investigations for systematic reviews of other study designs than randomized controlled trials are needed. R-AMSTAR should be further investigated as evidence for its use is limited and its measurement properties have not been studied sufficiently. In general, test-retest reliability should be investigated in future studies.
OBJECTIVES: To summarize all available evidence on measurement properties in terms of reliability, validity, and feasibility of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, including R(evised)-AMSTAR. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psycinfo, and CINAHL were searched for studies containing information on measurement properties of the tools in October 2013. We extracted data on study characteristics and measurement properties. These data were analyzed following measurement criteria. RESULTS: We included 13 studies, four of them were labeled as validation studies. Nine articles dealt with AMSTAR, two articles dealt with R-AMSTAR, and one article dealt with both instruments. In terms of interrater reliability, most items showed a substantial agreement (>0.6). The median intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the overall score of AMSTAR was 0.83 (range 0.60-0.98), indicating a high agreement. In terms of validity, ICCs were very high with all but one ICC lower than 0.8 when the AMSTAR score was compared with scores from other tools. Scoring AMSTAR takes between 10 and 20 minutes. CONCLUSION: AMSTAR seems to be reliable and valid. Further investigations for systematic reviews of other study designs than randomized controlled trials are needed. R-AMSTAR should be further investigated as evidence for its use is limited and its measurement properties have not been studied sufficiently. In general, test-retest reliability should be investigated in future studies.
Authors: Josep M García-Alamino; Manuel López-Cano; Leonard Kroese; Frederik Helgstrand; Filip Muysoms Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Xin Yin Wu; Xin Jian Du; Robin S T Ho; Clarence C Y Lee; Benjamin H K Yip; Martin C S Wong; Samuel Y S Wong; Vincent C H Chung Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2016-08-06 Impact factor: 3.738