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

被引：5991

作者：

Shea, Beverley J. ^{[1
,2
,3
]}

Reeves, Barnaby C. ^{[4
]}

Wells, George ^{[3
,5
]}

Thuku, Micere ^{[1
,2
]}

Hamel, Candyce ^{[1
]}

Moran, Julian ^{[6
]}

Moher, David ^{[1
,3
]}

Tugwell, Peter ^{[1
,2
,3
,7
]}

Welch, Vivian ^{[2
,3
]}

Kristjansson, Elizabeth ^{[8
]}

Henry, David A. ^{[9
,10
,11
]}

机构：

[1] Ottawa Hosp, Clin Epidemiol Program, Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada

[2] Bruyere Res Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada

[3] Univ Ottawa, Fac Med, Sch Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, Ottawa, ON, Canada

[4] Univ Bristol, Sch Clin Sci, Bristol, Avon, England

[5] Univ Ottawa, Heart Inst, Ottawa, ON, Canada

[6] Hosp Sick Children, Genet & Genome Biol Program, Toronto, ON, Canada

[7] Ottawa Hosp, Dept Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada

[8] Univ Ottawa, Fac Social Sci, Sch Psychol, Ctr Res Educ & Community Serv, Ottawa, ON, Canada

[9] Bond Univ, Ctr Res Evidence Based Practice, Gold Coast, Australia

[10] Univ Toronto, Dalla Lana Sch Publ Hlth, Toronto, ON, Canada

[11] Inst Clin Evaluat Sci, Toronto, ON, Canada

来源：

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL | 2017年 / 358卷

关键词：

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; BIAS;

D O I：

10.1136/bmj.j4008

中图分类号：

R5 [内科学];

学科分类号：

1002 ; 100201 ;

摘要：

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.

引用

页数：8

共 60 条

[1] How to obtain the P value from a confidence interval
Altman, Douglas G.
Bland, J. Martin
[J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2011, 343
[2] [Anonymous], METH CHECKL 1 SYST R
[3] [Anonymous], THESIS
[4] [Anonymous], COD COND BEST PRACT
[5] [Anonymous], APPR RISK BIAS RAND
[6] Arksey H., 2005, INT J SOC RES METHOD, V8, P19, DOI 10.1080/1364557032000119616
[7] Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach
Aromataris, Edoardo
Fernandez, Ritin
Godfrey, Christina M.
Holly, Cheryl
Khalil, Hanan
Tungpunkom, Patraporn
[J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTHCARE, 2015, 13 (03) : 132 - 140
[8] Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?
Bastian, Hilda
Glasziou, Paul
Chalmers, Iain
[J]. PLOS MEDICINE, 2010, 7 (09):
[9] Reliability of Chalmers' scale to assess quality in meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis
Bérard, A
Andreu, N
Tétrault, JP
Niyonsenga, T
Myhal, D
[J]. ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2000, 10 (08) : 498 - 503
[10] What is in a name? Nonfinancial influences on the outcomes of systematic reviews and guidelines
Bero, Lisa
[J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (11) : 1239 - 1241

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 →