Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

被引:2996
作者
Shea, Beverley J. [1 ]
Grimshaw, Jeremy M.
Wells, George A.
Boers, Maarten
Andersson, Neil
Hamel, Candyce
Porter, Ashley C.
Tugwell, Peter
Moher, David
Bouter, Lex M.
机构
[1] Vrije Univ Amsterdam Med Ctr, EMGO Inst, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Inst Populat Hlth, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Ottawa, Dept Epidemiol & Community Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[4] Vrije Univ Amsterdam Med Ctr, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[5] CIETcanada, Ottawa, ON, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1186/1471-2288-7-10
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Our objective was to develop an instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, building upon previous tools, empirical evidence and expert consensus. Methods: A 37-item assessment tool was formed by combining 1) the enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), 2) a checklist created by Sacks, and 3) three additional items recently judged to be of methodological importance. This tool was applied to 99 paper-based and 52 electronic systematic reviews. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify underlying components. The results were considered by methodological experts using a nominal group technique aimed at item reduction and design of an assessment tool with face and content validity. Results: The factor analysis identified 11 components. From each component, one item was selected by the nominal group. The resulting instrument was judged to have face and content validity. Conclusion: A measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed. The tool consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Additional studies are needed with a focus on the reproducibility and construct validity of AMSTAR, before strong recommendations can be made on its use.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 34 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1996, Health measurement scales
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2001, Systematic Reviews in Health Care
  • [3] [Anonymous], COCHRANE LIB
  • [4] CLUZEAU FA, 2001, DEV APPL APPRAISAL I
  • [5] EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE
    DAVIDOFF, F
    HAYNES, B
    SACKETT, D
    SMITH, R
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1995, 310 (6987) : 1085 - 1086
  • [6] Dickersin K, 1997, AIDS EDUC PREV, V9, P15
  • [7] THE EXISTENCE OF PUBLICATION BIAS AND RISK-FACTORS FOR ITS OCCURRENCE
    DICKERSIN, K
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1990, 263 (10): : 1385 - 1389
  • [8] The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions
    Downs, SH
    Black, N
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 1998, 52 (06) : 377 - 384
  • [9] Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German
    Egger, E
    ZellwegerZahner, T
    Schneider, M
    Junker, C
    Lengeler, C
    Antes, G
    [J]. LANCET, 1997, 350 (9074) : 326 - 329
  • [10] Hopewell S, 2004, COCHRANE LIB, V1