Literature DB >> 35185243

Heather Flowers1, Paulette Guitard2, Judy King3, Elizabeth Fitzpatrick1, Daniel Bérubé1, Julie Alexandra Barette4, Dominique Cardinal5, Sabrina Cavallo6, Jennifer O'Neil7, Marylène Charette8, Laurence Côté7, Nalia Cecilia Gurgel-Juarez7, Karine Toupin-April9,10, Shirin M Shallwani7, Michelle Dorion7, Prinon Rahman7, Maude Potvin-Gilbert7, Vanessa Bartolini7, Krystina B Lewis, Rose Martini, Josée Lagacé, Roseline Galipeau, Marie-Christine Ranger, Fauve Duquette-Laplante, Marie-France Perrier, Jacinthe Savard, Nicole Paquet, Jocelyne Tourigny, Marie-Eve Bérubé, Hussein Ba Haroon, Patrick Duong, Jacynthe Bigras, Julie Capistran, Laurianne Loew.   

Abstract

Objective: Produce a French-Canadian translation of AMSTAR 2, affirm its content validity, and examine interrater reliability.
Methods: Based on Vallerand's methodological approach, we conducted forward and parallel inverse-translations. Subsequently, an expert panel evaluated the translations to create a preliminary experimental French-Canadian version. A second expert panel examined this version and proposed additional modifications. Twenty future health professionals then rated the second experimental version for ambiguity on a scale (from 1 to 7). The principal co-investigators then reviewed the problematic elements and proposed a pre-official version. To ascertain content validity, a final back-translation was conducted resulting in the official version. Four judges evaluated 13 systematic reviews using the official French-Canadian version of AMSTAR 2. The Kappa coefficient was used to evaluate interrater reliability.
Results: This rigorous adaptation enabled the development of a Franco-Canadian version of AMSTAR 2. Its application demonstrated low ambiguity (mean 1.15; SD 0.26) as well as good overall interrater reliability (total κ > 0.64) across all items.
Conclusion: The French-Canadian version of AMSTAR 2 can now support francophone clinicians, educators, and managers in Canada as they undertake evidence-based practice. © Canadian Physiotherapy Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  assessment tool; cross-cultural validity; methodological quality; systematic reviews; translation

Year:  2021        PMID: 35185243      PMCID: PMC8816359          DOI: 10.3138/ptc-2019-0104

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiother Can        ISSN: 0300-0508            Impact factor:   1.037


  43 in total

1.  A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool.

Authors:  Robert C Lorenz; Katja Matthias; Dawid Pieper; Uta Wegewitz; Johannes Morche; Marc Nocon; Olesja Rissling; Jacqueline Schirm; Anja Jacobs
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly.

Authors:  Mohammad O Sharif; Fyeza N Janjua-Sharif; Fyeza N Janjua Sharif; Hesham Ali; Farooq Ahmed
Journal:  Oral Health Dent Manag       Date:  2013-03

Review 3.  A methodological quality synthesis of systematic reviews on computer-mediated continuing education for healthcare providers.

Authors:  Lisa K Militello; Bonnie Gance-Cleveland; Heather Aldrich; Rabah Kamal
Journal:  Worldviews Evid Based Nurs       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 4.  Methodological quality of meta-analyses of single-case experimental studies.

Authors:  Laleh Jamshidi; Mieke Heyvaert; Lies Declercq; Belén Fernández-Castilla; John M Ferron; Mariola Moeyaert; S Natasha Beretvas; Patrick Onghena; Wim Van den Noortgate
Journal:  Res Dev Disabil       Date:  2017-12-28

5.  Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers.

Authors:  Michelle Gates; Allison Gates; Gonçalo Duarte; Maria Cary; Monika Becker; Barbara Prediger; Ben Vandermeer; Ricardo M Fernandes; Dawid Pieper; Lisa Hartling
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 6.  Patient- and family-centered care interventions for improving the quality of health care: A review of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Myonghwa Park; Thi-Thanh-Tinh Giap; Mihyun Lee; Hyun Jeong; Miri Jeong; Younghye Go
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 5.837

7.  AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both.

Authors:  Beverley J Shea; Barnaby C Reeves; George Wells; Micere Thuku; Candyce Hamel; Julian Moran; David Moher; Peter Tugwell; Vivian Welch; Elizabeth Kristjansson; David A Henry
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2017-09-21

Review 8.  The management strategies of cancer-associated anorexia: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Fangyuan Zhang; Aomei Shen; Yinghui Jin; Wanmin Qiang
Journal:  BMC Complement Altern Med       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 3.659

9.  The role of imaging specialists as authors of systematic reviews on diagnostic and interventional imaging and its impact on scientific quality: report from the EuroAIM Evidence-based Radiology Working Group.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Humayun Bashir; Dominik Berzaczy; Guglielmo Cannella; Ansgar Espeland; Nicola Flor; Thomas Helbich; Myriam Hunink; Dermot E Malone; Ritse Mann; Claudia Muzzupappa; Lars J Petersen; Katrine Riklund; Luca M Sconfienza; Zbigniew Serafin; Sandra Spronk; Jaap Stoker; Edwin J R van Beek; Dierk Vorwerk; Giovanni Di Leo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement.

Authors:  Brittany U Burda; Haley K Holmer; Susan L Norris
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-04-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.