Cargando…

Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

BACKGROUND: Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. It is recommended that authors assess and report the methodological quality of SRs in overviews—for example, using A MeaSure...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pollock, Michelle, Fernandes, Ricardo M., Hartling, Lisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5364717/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28335734
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0325-5
_version_ 1782517381412683776
author Pollock, Michelle
Fernandes, Ricardo M.
Hartling, Lisa
author_facet Pollock, Michelle
Fernandes, Ricardo M.
Hartling, Lisa
author_sort Pollock, Michelle
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. It is recommended that authors assess and report the methodological quality of SRs in overviews—for example, using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Currently, there is variation in whether and how overview authors assess and report SR quality, and limited guidance is available. Our objectives were to: examine methodological considerations involved in using AMSTAR to assess the quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs in overviews of healthcare interventions; identify challenges (and develop potential decision rules) when using AMSTAR in overviews; and examine the potential impact of considering methodological quality when making inclusion decisions in overviews. METHODS: We selected seven overviews of healthcare interventions and included all SRs meeting each overview’s inclusion criteria. For each SR, two reviewers independently conducted AMSTAR assessments with consensus and discussed challenges encountered. We also examined the correlation between AMSTAR assessments and SR results/conclusions. RESULTS: Ninety-five SRs were included (30 Cochrane, 65 non-Cochrane). Mean AMSTAR assessments (9.6/11 vs. 5.5/11; p < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (AC1 statistic: 0.84 vs. 0.69; “almost perfect” vs. “substantial” using the Landis & Koch criteria) were higher for Cochrane compared to non-Cochrane SRs. Four challenges were identified when applying AMSTAR in overviews: the scope of the SRs and overviews often differed; SRs examining similar topics sometimes made different methodological decisions; reporting of non-Cochrane SRs was sometimes poor; and some non-Cochrane SRs included other SRs as well as primary studies. Decision rules were developed to address each challenge. We found no evidence that AMSTAR assessments were correlated with SR results/conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the AMSTAR tool can be used successfully in overviews that include Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, though decision rules may be useful to circumvent common challenges. Findings support existing recommendations that quality assessments of SRs in overviews be conducted independently, in duplicate, with a process for consensus. Results also suggest that using methodological quality to guide inclusion decisions (e.g., to exclude poorly conducted and reported SRs) may not introduce bias into the overview process. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0325-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5364717
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53647172017-03-24 Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions Pollock, Michelle Fernandes, Ricardo M. Hartling, Lisa BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. It is recommended that authors assess and report the methodological quality of SRs in overviews—for example, using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Currently, there is variation in whether and how overview authors assess and report SR quality, and limited guidance is available. Our objectives were to: examine methodological considerations involved in using AMSTAR to assess the quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs in overviews of healthcare interventions; identify challenges (and develop potential decision rules) when using AMSTAR in overviews; and examine the potential impact of considering methodological quality when making inclusion decisions in overviews. METHODS: We selected seven overviews of healthcare interventions and included all SRs meeting each overview’s inclusion criteria. For each SR, two reviewers independently conducted AMSTAR assessments with consensus and discussed challenges encountered. We also examined the correlation between AMSTAR assessments and SR results/conclusions. RESULTS: Ninety-five SRs were included (30 Cochrane, 65 non-Cochrane). Mean AMSTAR assessments (9.6/11 vs. 5.5/11; p < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (AC1 statistic: 0.84 vs. 0.69; “almost perfect” vs. “substantial” using the Landis & Koch criteria) were higher for Cochrane compared to non-Cochrane SRs. Four challenges were identified when applying AMSTAR in overviews: the scope of the SRs and overviews often differed; SRs examining similar topics sometimes made different methodological decisions; reporting of non-Cochrane SRs was sometimes poor; and some non-Cochrane SRs included other SRs as well as primary studies. Decision rules were developed to address each challenge. We found no evidence that AMSTAR assessments were correlated with SR results/conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the AMSTAR tool can be used successfully in overviews that include Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, though decision rules may be useful to circumvent common challenges. Findings support existing recommendations that quality assessments of SRs in overviews be conducted independently, in duplicate, with a process for consensus. Results also suggest that using methodological quality to guide inclusion decisions (e.g., to exclude poorly conducted and reported SRs) may not introduce bias into the overview process. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0325-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5364717/ /pubmed/28335734 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0325-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pollock, Michelle
Fernandes, Ricardo M.
Hartling, Lisa
Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title_full Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title_fullStr Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title_short Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title_sort evaluation of amstar to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5364717/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28335734
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0325-5
work_keys_str_mv AT pollockmichelle evaluationofamstartoassessthemethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions
AT fernandesricardom evaluationofamstartoassessthemethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions
AT hartlinglisa evaluationofamstartoassessthemethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions