AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both - PubMed (original) (raw)

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

Beverley J Shea et al. BMJ. 2017.

Abstract

The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions_._

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi\_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Similar articles

• Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Non-Randomized Studies of Adverse Cardiovascular Effects of Thiazolidinediones and Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: Application of a New Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.
  Bilandzic A, Fitzpatrick T, Rosella L, Henry D. Bilandzic A, et al. PLoS Med. 2016 Apr 5;13(4):e1001987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001987. eCollection 2016 Apr. PLoS Med. 2016. PMID: 27046153 Free PMC article.
• A nephrology guide to reading and using systematic reviews of observational studies.
  Ravani P, Ronksley PE, James MT, Strippoli GF. Ravani P, et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015 Oct;30(10):1615-21. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfv257. Epub 2015 Jun 24. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015. PMID: 26113546 Review.
• Understanding systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Drug Ther Bull. 2013 Oct;51(10):117-20. doi: 10.1136/dtb.2013.10.0211. Drug Ther Bull. 2013. PMID: 24113147

Cited by

• [Formulation of the Best Practice Evidence-Based Nutrition Management Protocol for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients Undergoing Chemoradiotherapy].
  Cheng Y, Liu H, Ma Y, Yang T, Hu W. Cheng Y, et al. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2024 Sep 20;55(5):1232-1239. doi: 10.12182/20230860101. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2024. PMID: 39507990 Free PMC article. Chinese.
• Comparison of different concentrations atropine in controlling children and adolescent myopia: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  Chen B, Ni Y, Chen J, Xing S, Zhang Z. Chen B, et al. Front Ophthalmol (Lausanne). 2024 Oct 23;4:1447558. doi: 10.3389/fopht.2024.1447558. eCollection 2024. Front Ophthalmol (Lausanne). 2024. PMID: 39507931 Free PMC article.
• Tranexamic Acid in Rhinoplasty and Septoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
  Khajuria A, Khademi Mansour HR, Muhammad I, Asare A, Tammasse I, Suresh J, Leiberman C, Pacheco-Barrios N, Brown S, Dogan T, Rohrich R. Khajuria A, et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024 Nov 5;12(11):e6275. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006275. eCollection 2024 Nov. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024. PMID: 39507311 Free PMC article.
• Shifting Rhythms: A Systematic Review Exploring the Multifaceted Effects of Shift Work and Circadian Disruption on Employee Cardiovascular Health.
  Hanif A, Okafor DK, Katyal G, Kaur G, Ashraf H, Bodapati A, Nath TS. Hanif A, et al. Cureus. 2024 Oct 7;16(10):e71003. doi: 10.7759/cureus.71003. eCollection 2024 Oct. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 39507145 Free PMC article. Review.

References

1. 1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000326. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
2. 1. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:597-9. 10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
3. 1. Moher D. Alessandro Liberati, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, and the PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for (SR) and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;6:264-9. 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 - DOI - PubMed
4. 1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12. 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 - DOI - PubMed
5. 1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.handbook.cochrane.org.

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • Europe PubMed Central
  • HighWire
  • Ovid Technologies, Inc.
  • PubMed Central

• Other Literature Sources

  • scite Smart Citations