Dawid Pieper1, Robert C Lorenz2, Tanja Rombey3, Anja Jacobs4, Olesja Rissling4, Simone Freitag4, Katja Matthias4. 1. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: Dawid.pieper@uni-wh.de. 2. Federal Joint Committee (Healthcare), Gutenbergstraße 13, 10587 Berlin, Germany; Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lise-Meitner Group for Environmental Neuroscience, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany. 3. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany. 4. Federal Joint Committee (Healthcare), Gutenbergstraße 13, 10587 Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Sam Streck; Ryan McIntire; Lawrence Canale; J Michael Anderson; Micah Hartwell; Trevor Torgerson; Kelly Dunn; Matt Vassar Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Dawid Pieper; Irma Hellbrecht; Linlu Zhao; Clemens Baur; Georgia Pick; Sarah Schneider; Thomas Harder; Kelsey Young; Andrea C Tricco; Ella Westhaver; Matthew Tunis Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2022-08-22
Authors: Nicola Döring; Melisa Conde; Karlheinz Brandenburg; Wolfgang Broll; Horst-Michael Gross; Stephan Werner; Alexander Raake Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 4.614