Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study

被引:39
作者
Gates, Allison [1 ]
Gates, Michelle [1 ]
Duarte, Goncalo [2 ]
Cary, Maria [3 ]
Becker, Monika [4 ]
Prediger, Barbara [4 ]
Vandermeer, Ben [1 ]
Fernandes, Ricardo M. [2 ,5 ]
Pieper, Dawid [4 ]
Hartling, Lisa [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alberta, Dept Pediat, Alberta Res Ctr Hlth Evidence, 11405-87 Ave NW, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada
[2] Univ Lisbon, Inst Med Mol, Clin Pharmacol Unit, Av Prof Egas Moniz, P-1649028 Lisbon, Portugal
[3] Natl Assoc Pharmacies, Ctr Hlth Evaluat & Res CEFAR, Rua Marechal Saldanha 1, P-1249069 Lisbon, Portugal
[4] Univ Witten Herdecke, Inst Forsch Operativen Med, Dept Humanmed, Witten, Germany
[5] Santa Maria Hosp, Dept Pediat, Lisbon, Portugal
基金
美国国家科学基金会; 英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Reliability; Validity; Systematic reviews; Risk of bias; Quality assessment; Overviews of reviews; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; OVERVIEWS; BIAS; RISK; TOOL; AGREEMENT; GUIDANCE; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-018-0746-1
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can provide the best evidence to inform decision-making, but their methodological and reporting quality varies. Tools exist to guide the critical appraisal of quality and risk of bias in SRs, but evaluations of their measurement properties are limited. We will investigate the interrater reliability (IRR), usability, and applicability of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), AMSTAR 2, and Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) for SRs in the fields of biomedicine and public health. Methods: An international team of researchers at three collaborating centres will undertake the study. We will use a random sample of 30 SRs of RCTs investigating therapeutic interventions indexed in MEDLINE in February 2014. Two reviewers at each centre will appraise the quality and risk of bias in each SR using AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS. We will record the time to complete each assessment and for the two reviewers to reach consensus for each SR. We will extract the descriptive characteristics of each SR, the included studies, participants, interventions, and comparators. We will also extract the direction and strength of the results and conclusions for the primary outcome. We will summarise the descriptive characteristics of the SRs using means and standard deviations, or frequencies and proportions. To test for interrater reliability between reviewers and between the consensus agreements of reviewer pairs, we will use Gwet's AC(1) statistic. For comparability to previous evaluations, we will also calculate weighted Cohen's kappa and Fleiss' kappa statistics. To estimate usability, we will calculate the mean time to complete the appraisal and to reach consensus for each tool. To inform applications of the tools, we will test for statistical associations between quality scores and risk of bias judgments, and the results and conclusions of the SRs. Discussion: Appraising the methodological and reporting quality of SRs is necessary to determine the trustworthiness of their conclusions. Which tool may be most reliably applied and how the appraisals should be used is uncertain; the usability of newly developed tools is unknown. This investigation of common (AMSTAR) and newly developed (AMSTAR 2, ROBIS) tools will provide empiric data to inform their application, interpretation, and refinement.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2008, SYSTEMATIC REV HLTH
  • [2] [Anonymous], METHODS COMMENTARY R
  • [3] [Anonymous], J CLIN EPIDEMIOL
  • [4] [Anonymous], J CLIN EPIDEMIOL
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2003, Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2015, BMJ-BRIT MED J, DOI DOI 10.1136/BMJ.G7647
  • [7] Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist
    Ballard, Madeleine
    Montgomery, Paul
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2017, 8 (01) : 92 - 108
  • [8] The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity
    Buehn, Stefanie
    Mathes, Tim
    Prengel, Peggy
    Wegewitz, Uta
    Ostermann, Thomas
    Robens, Sibylle
    Pieper, Dawid
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2017, 91 : 121 - 128
  • [9] Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer
    Crequit, Perrine
    Trinquart, Ludovic
    Yavchitz, Amelie
    Ravaud, Philippe
    [J]. BMC MEDICINE, 2016, 14
  • [10] Dissemination C.for R., 2009, CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care