Cargando…

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are used widely to guide health care decisions. Several tools have been created to assess systematic review quality. The measurement tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews known as the AMSTAR tool applies a yes/no score to eleven relevant d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Popovich, Ivor, Windsor, Bethany, Jordan, Vanessa, Showell, Marian, Shea, Bev, Farquhar, Cynthia M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3532502/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23300526
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050403
_version_ 1782254320724475904
author Popovich, Ivor
Windsor, Bethany
Jordan, Vanessa
Showell, Marian
Shea, Bev
Farquhar, Cynthia M.
author_facet Popovich, Ivor
Windsor, Bethany
Jordan, Vanessa
Showell, Marian
Shea, Bev
Farquhar, Cynthia M.
author_sort Popovich, Ivor
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are used widely to guide health care decisions. Several tools have been created to assess systematic review quality. The measurement tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews known as the AMSTAR tool applies a yes/no score to eleven relevant domains of review methodology. This tool has been reworked so that each domain is scored based on a four point scale, producing R-AMSTAR. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We aimed to compare the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools in assessing systematic reviews in the field of assisted reproduction for subfertility. All published systematic reviews on assisted reproductive technology, with the latest search for studies taking place from 2007–2011, were considered. Reviews that contained no included studies or considered diagnostic outcomes were excluded. Thirty each of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were randomly selected from a search of relevant databases. Both tools were then applied to all sixty reviews. The results were converted to percentage scores and all reviews graded and ranked based on this. AMSTAR produced a much wider variation in percentage scores and achieved higher inter-rater reliability than R-AMSTAR according to kappa statistics. The average rating for Cochrane reviews was consistent between the two tools (88.3% for R-AMSTAR versus 83.6% for AMSTAR) but inconsistent for non-Cochrane reviews (63.9% R-AMSTAR vs. 38.5% AMSTAR). In comparing the rankings generated between the two tools Cochrane reviews changed an average of 4.2 places, compared to 2.9 for non-Cochrane. CONCLUSION: R-AMSTAR provided greater guidance in the assessment of domains and produced quantitative results. However, there were many problems with the construction of its criteria and AMSTAR was much easier to apply consistently. We recommend that AMSTAR incorporates the findings of this study and produces additional guidance for its application in order to improve its reliability and usefulness.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3532502
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35325022013-01-08 Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches Popovich, Ivor Windsor, Bethany Jordan, Vanessa Showell, Marian Shea, Bev Farquhar, Cynthia M. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are used widely to guide health care decisions. Several tools have been created to assess systematic review quality. The measurement tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews known as the AMSTAR tool applies a yes/no score to eleven relevant domains of review methodology. This tool has been reworked so that each domain is scored based on a four point scale, producing R-AMSTAR. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We aimed to compare the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools in assessing systematic reviews in the field of assisted reproduction for subfertility. All published systematic reviews on assisted reproductive technology, with the latest search for studies taking place from 2007–2011, were considered. Reviews that contained no included studies or considered diagnostic outcomes were excluded. Thirty each of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were randomly selected from a search of relevant databases. Both tools were then applied to all sixty reviews. The results were converted to percentage scores and all reviews graded and ranked based on this. AMSTAR produced a much wider variation in percentage scores and achieved higher inter-rater reliability than R-AMSTAR according to kappa statistics. The average rating for Cochrane reviews was consistent between the two tools (88.3% for R-AMSTAR versus 83.6% for AMSTAR) but inconsistent for non-Cochrane reviews (63.9% R-AMSTAR vs. 38.5% AMSTAR). In comparing the rankings generated between the two tools Cochrane reviews changed an average of 4.2 places, compared to 2.9 for non-Cochrane. CONCLUSION: R-AMSTAR provided greater guidance in the assessment of domains and produced quantitative results. However, there were many problems with the construction of its criteria and AMSTAR was much easier to apply consistently. We recommend that AMSTAR incorporates the findings of this study and produces additional guidance for its application in order to improve its reliability and usefulness. Public Library of Science 2012-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3532502/ /pubmed/23300526 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050403 Text en © 2012 Popovich et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Popovich, Ivor
Windsor, Bethany
Jordan, Vanessa
Showell, Marian
Shea, Bev
Farquhar, Cynthia M.
Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches
title Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches
title_full Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches
title_fullStr Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches
title_full_unstemmed Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches
title_short Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches
title_sort methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3532502/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23300526
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050403
work_keys_str_mv AT popovichivor methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches
AT windsorbethany methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches
AT jordanvanessa methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches
AT showellmarian methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches
AT sheabev methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches
AT farquharcynthiam methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches