Cargando…
From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance
Research synthesis seeks to gather, examine and evaluate systematically research reports that converge toward answering a carefully crafted research question, which states the problem patient population, the intervention under consideration, and the clinical outcome of interest. The product of the p...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Bentham Open
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21088686 http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874210601004020084 |
_version_ | 1782187422526734336 |
---|---|
author | Kung, Jason Chiappelli, Francesco Cajulis, Olivia O Avezova, Raisa Kossan, George Chew, Laura Maida, Carl A |
author_facet | Kung, Jason Chiappelli, Francesco Cajulis, Olivia O Avezova, Raisa Kossan, George Chew, Laura Maida, Carl A |
author_sort | Kung, Jason |
collection | PubMed |
description | Research synthesis seeks to gather, examine and evaluate systematically research reports that converge toward answering a carefully crafted research question, which states the problem patient population, the intervention under consideration, and the clinical outcome of interest. The product of the process of systematically reviewing the research literature pertinent to the research question thusly stated is the “systematic review”. The objective and transparent approach of the systematic review aims to minimize bias. Most systematic reviews yield quantitative analyses of measurable data (e.g., acceptable sampling analysis, meta-analysis). Systematic reviews may also be qualitative, while adhering to accepted standards for gathering, evaluating, and reporting evidence. Systematic reviews provide highly rated recommendations for evidence-based health care; but, systematic reviews are not equally reliable and successful in minimizing bias. Several instruments are available to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was derived from factor analysis of the most relevant items among them. AMSTAR consists of eleven items with good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews, has been widely accepted and utilized, and has gained in reliability, reproducibility. AMSTAR does not produce quantifiable assessments of systematic review quality and clinical relevance. In this study, we have revised the AMSTAR instrument, detracting nothing from its content and construct validity, and utilizing the very criteria employed in the development of the original tool, with the aim of yielding an instrument that can quantify the quality of systematic reviews. We present validation data of the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR), and discuss its implications and application in evidence-based health care. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2948145 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | Bentham Open |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-29481452010-11-18 From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance Kung, Jason Chiappelli, Francesco Cajulis, Olivia O Avezova, Raisa Kossan, George Chew, Laura Maida, Carl A Open Dent J Article Research synthesis seeks to gather, examine and evaluate systematically research reports that converge toward answering a carefully crafted research question, which states the problem patient population, the intervention under consideration, and the clinical outcome of interest. The product of the process of systematically reviewing the research literature pertinent to the research question thusly stated is the “systematic review”. The objective and transparent approach of the systematic review aims to minimize bias. Most systematic reviews yield quantitative analyses of measurable data (e.g., acceptable sampling analysis, meta-analysis). Systematic reviews may also be qualitative, while adhering to accepted standards for gathering, evaluating, and reporting evidence. Systematic reviews provide highly rated recommendations for evidence-based health care; but, systematic reviews are not equally reliable and successful in minimizing bias. Several instruments are available to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was derived from factor analysis of the most relevant items among them. AMSTAR consists of eleven items with good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews, has been widely accepted and utilized, and has gained in reliability, reproducibility. AMSTAR does not produce quantifiable assessments of systematic review quality and clinical relevance. In this study, we have revised the AMSTAR instrument, detracting nothing from its content and construct validity, and utilizing the very criteria employed in the development of the original tool, with the aim of yielding an instrument that can quantify the quality of systematic reviews. We present validation data of the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR), and discuss its implications and application in evidence-based health care. Bentham Open 2010-07-16 /pmc/articles/PMC2948145/ /pubmed/21088686 http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874210601004020084 Text en © Kung et al.; Licensee Bentham Open. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Article Kung, Jason Chiappelli, Francesco Cajulis, Olivia O Avezova, Raisa Kossan, George Chew, Laura Maida, Carl A From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance |
title | From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance |
title_full | From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance |
title_fullStr | From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance |
title_full_unstemmed | From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance |
title_short | From Systematic Reviews to Clinical Recommendations for Evidence-Based Health Care: Validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for Grading of Clinical Relevance |
title_sort | from systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (r-amstar) for grading of clinical relevance |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21088686 http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874210601004020084 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kungjason fromsystematicreviewstoclinicalrecommendationsforevidencebasedhealthcarevalidationofrevisedassessmentofmultiplesystematicreviewsramstarforgradingofclinicalrelevance AT chiappellifrancesco fromsystematicreviewstoclinicalrecommendationsforevidencebasedhealthcarevalidationofrevisedassessmentofmultiplesystematicreviewsramstarforgradingofclinicalrelevance AT cajulisoliviao fromsystematicreviewstoclinicalrecommendationsforevidencebasedhealthcarevalidationofrevisedassessmentofmultiplesystematicreviewsramstarforgradingofclinicalrelevance AT avezovaraisa fromsystematicreviewstoclinicalrecommendationsforevidencebasedhealthcarevalidationofrevisedassessmentofmultiplesystematicreviewsramstarforgradingofclinicalrelevance AT kossangeorge fromsystematicreviewstoclinicalrecommendationsforevidencebasedhealthcarevalidationofrevisedassessmentofmultiplesystematicreviewsramstarforgradingofclinicalrelevance AT chewlaura fromsystematicreviewstoclinicalrecommendationsforevidencebasedhealthcarevalidationofrevisedassessmentofmultiplesystematicreviewsramstarforgradingofclinicalrelevance AT maidacarla fromsystematicreviewstoclinicalrecommendationsforevidencebasedhealthcarevalidationofrevisedassessmentofmultiplesystematicreviewsramstarforgradingofclinicalrelevance |