Francisco Gómez-García1, Juan Ruano2, Jesus Gay-Mimbrera3, Macarena Aguilar-Luque3, Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas1, Patricia Alcalde-Mellado4, Beatriz Maestre-López4, Pedro Jesús Carmona-Fernández3, Marcelino González-Padilla1, Antonio Vélez García-Nieto1, Beatriz Isla-Tejera5. 1. Department of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, 14004 Córdoba, Spain; IMIBIC, Reina Sofía University Hospital, University of Cordoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain. 2. Department of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, 14004 Córdoba, Spain; IMIBIC, Reina Sofía University Hospital, University of Cordoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain. Electronic address: juanruanoruiz@mac.com. 3. IMIBIC, Reina Sofía University Hospital, University of Cordoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain. 4. IMIBIC, Reina Sofía University Hospital, University of Cordoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain; School of Medicine, University of Cordoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain. 5. IMIBIC, Reina Sofía University Hospital, University of Cordoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain; Department of Pharmacy, Reina Sofía University Hospital, 14004 Córdoba, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: No gold standard exists to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs). Although Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is widely accepted for analyzing quality, the ROBIS instrument has recently been developed. This study aimed to compare the capacity of both instruments to capture the quality of SRs concerning psoriasis interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic literature searches were undertaken on relevant databases. For each review, methodological quality and bias risk were evaluated using the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools. Descriptive and principal component analyses were conducted to describe similarities and discrepancies between both assessment tools. RESULTS: We classified 139 intervention SRs as displaying high/moderate/low methodological quality and as high/low risk of bias. A high risk of bias was detected for most SRs classified as displaying high or moderate methodological quality by AMSTAR. When comparing ROBIS result profiles, responses to domain 4 signaling questions showed the greatest differences between bias risk assessments, whereas domain 2 items showed the least. CONCLUSION: When considering SRs published about psoriasis, methodological quality remains suboptimal, and the risk of bias is elevated, even for SRs exhibiting high methodological quality. Furthermore, the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools may be considered as complementary when conducting quality assessment of SRs.
OBJECTIVES: No gold standard exists to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs). Although Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is widely accepted for analyzing quality, the ROBIS instrument has recently been developed. This study aimed to compare the capacity of both instruments to capture the quality of SRs concerning psoriasis interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic literature searches were undertaken on relevant databases. For each review, methodological quality and bias risk were evaluated using the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools. Descriptive and principal component analyses were conducted to describe similarities and discrepancies between both assessment tools. RESULTS: We classified 139 intervention SRs as displaying high/moderate/low methodological quality and as high/low risk of bias. A high risk of bias was detected for most SRs classified as displaying high or moderate methodological quality by AMSTAR. When comparing ROBIS result profiles, responses to domain 4 signaling questions showed the greatest differences between bias risk assessments, whereas domain 2 items showed the least. CONCLUSION: When considering SRs published about psoriasis, methodological quality remains suboptimal, and the risk of bias is elevated, even for SRs exhibiting high methodological quality. Furthermore, the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools may be considered as complementary when conducting quality assessment of SRs.
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: Francisco Gómez-García; Juan Ruano; Macarena Aguilar-Luque; Patricia Alcalde-Mellado; Jesús Gay-Mimbrera; José Luis Hernández-Romero; Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas; Beatriz Maestre-López; Marcelino González-Padilla; Pedro J Carmona-Fernández; Antonio Vélez García-Nieto; Beatriz Isla-Tejera Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Leandro Fórnias Machado de Rezende; Juan Pablo Rey-López; Thiago Hérick de Sá; Nicholas Chartres; Alice Fabbri; Lauren Powell; Emmanuel Stamatakis; Lisa Bero Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: Isabel Viguera-Guerra; Juan Ruano; Macarena Aguilar-Luque; Jesús Gay-Mimbrera; Ana Montilla; Jose Luis Fernández-Rueda; José Fernández-Chaichio; Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas; Pedro Jesús Gómez-Arias; Antonio Vélez García-Nieto; Francisco Gómez-Garcia; Beatriz Isla-Tejera Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 3.240