Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Aug 26;16(1):111.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0183-6.

Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better?

Uta Wegewitz  1 , Beate Weikert  1 , Alba Fishta  1 , Anja Jacobs  2 , Dawid Pieper  3
Affiliations

Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better?

Uta Wegewitz et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Evidence syntheses, and in particular systematic reviews (SRs), have become one of the cornerstones of evidence-based health care. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool has become the most widely used tool for investigating the methodological quality of SRs and is currently undergoing revision. The objective of this paper is to present insights, challenges and potential solutions from the point of view of a group of assessors, while referring to earlier methodological discussions and debates with respect to AMSTAR.

Discussion: One major drawback of AMSTAR is that it relies heavily on reporting quality rather than on methodological quality. This can be found in several items. Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that there are now new methods and procedures that did not exist when AMSTAR was developed. For example, the note to item 1 should now refer to the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Furthermore, item 3 should consider the definition of hand-searching, as the process of reviewing conference proceedings using the search function (e.g. in Microsoft Word or in a PDF file) does not meet the definition set out by the Cochrane Collaboration. Moreover, methods for assessing the quality of the body of evidence have evolved since AMSTAR was developed and should be incorporated into a revised AMSTAR tool. Potential solutions are presented for each AMSTAR item with the aim of allowing a more thorough assessment of SRs. As the AMSTAR tool is currently undergoing further development, our paper hopes to add to preceding discussions and papers regarding this tool and stimulate further discussion.

Keywords: Decision making; Evidence-Based Medicine; Methods; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Hartling L, et al. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49667. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049667. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pieper D, et al. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(12):1267–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(11):1271–8. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-B. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oxman AD, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(1):91–8. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90205-N. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sacks HS, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(8):450–5. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198702193160806. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources