Cargando…
User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary
BACKGROUND: ‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’ (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10018966/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36927334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01879-8 |
_version_ | 1784907923716046848 |
---|---|
author | De Santis, Karina Karolina Pieper, Dawid Lorenz, Robert C. Wegewitz, Uta Siemens, Waldemar Matthias, Katja |
author_facet | De Santis, Karina Karolina Pieper, Dawid Lorenz, Robert C. Wegewitz, Uta Siemens, Waldemar Matthias, Katja |
author_sort | De Santis, Karina Karolina |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: ‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’ (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating of the individual items and the application of AMSTAR 2 from the user perspective. DISCUSSION: A group of six experienced users (methodologists working in different clinical fields for at least 10 years) identified and discussed the challenges in rating of each item and the general use of AMSTAR 2 to appraise SRs. A group discussion was used to develop recommendations on how users could deal with the identified challenges. We identified various challenges with the content of items 2–16 and with the derivation of the overall confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2. These challenges include the need (1) to provide additional definitions (e.g., what constitutes major deviations from SR protocol on item 2), (2) to choose a rating strategy for multiple conditions on single items (e.g., how to rate item 5 if studies were selected in duplicate, but consensus between two authors was not reported), and (3) to determine rules for deriving the confidence ratings (e.g., what items are critical for such ratings). Based on these challenges we formulated specific recommendations for items 2–16 that AMSTAR 2 users could consider before applying the tool. SUMMARY: Our commentary adds to the existing literature by providing the first in-depth examination of the AMSTAR 2 tool from the user perspective. The identified challenges could be addressed by additional decision rules including definitions for ambiguous items and guidance for rating of complex items and derivation of confidence ratings. We recommend that a team consensus regarding such decision rules is required before appraisal procedure begins. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10018966 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100189662023-03-17 User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary De Santis, Karina Karolina Pieper, Dawid Lorenz, Robert C. Wegewitz, Uta Siemens, Waldemar Matthias, Katja BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: ‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’ (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating of the individual items and the application of AMSTAR 2 from the user perspective. DISCUSSION: A group of six experienced users (methodologists working in different clinical fields for at least 10 years) identified and discussed the challenges in rating of each item and the general use of AMSTAR 2 to appraise SRs. A group discussion was used to develop recommendations on how users could deal with the identified challenges. We identified various challenges with the content of items 2–16 and with the derivation of the overall confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2. These challenges include the need (1) to provide additional definitions (e.g., what constitutes major deviations from SR protocol on item 2), (2) to choose a rating strategy for multiple conditions on single items (e.g., how to rate item 5 if studies were selected in duplicate, but consensus between two authors was not reported), and (3) to determine rules for deriving the confidence ratings (e.g., what items are critical for such ratings). Based on these challenges we formulated specific recommendations for items 2–16 that AMSTAR 2 users could consider before applying the tool. SUMMARY: Our commentary adds to the existing literature by providing the first in-depth examination of the AMSTAR 2 tool from the user perspective. The identified challenges could be addressed by additional decision rules including definitions for ambiguous items and guidance for rating of complex items and derivation of confidence ratings. We recommend that a team consensus regarding such decision rules is required before appraisal procedure begins. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable. BioMed Central 2023-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10018966/ /pubmed/36927334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01879-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research De Santis, Karina Karolina Pieper, Dawid Lorenz, Robert C. Wegewitz, Uta Siemens, Waldemar Matthias, Katja User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary |
title | User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary |
title_full | User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary |
title_fullStr | User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary |
title_full_unstemmed | User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary |
title_short | User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary |
title_sort | user experience of applying amstar 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10018966/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36927334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01879-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT desantiskarinakarolina userexperienceofapplyingamstar2toappraisesystematicreviewsofhealthcareinterventionsacommentary AT pieperdawid userexperienceofapplyingamstar2toappraisesystematicreviewsofhealthcareinterventionsacommentary AT lorenzrobertc userexperienceofapplyingamstar2toappraisesystematicreviewsofhealthcareinterventionsacommentary AT wegewitzuta userexperienceofapplyingamstar2toappraisesystematicreviewsofhealthcareinterventionsacommentary AT siemenswaldemar userexperienceofapplyingamstar2toappraisesystematicreviewsofhealthcareinterventionsacommentary AT matthiaskatja userexperienceofapplyingamstar2toappraisesystematicreviewsofhealthcareinterventionsacommentary |