Cargando…

Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption

BACKGROUND: In 2007, AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs), was published, and it has since become one of the most widely used instruments for SR appraisal. In September 2017, AMSTAR 2 was published as an updated version of t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bojcic, Ruzica, Todoric, Mate, Puljak, Livia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8996416/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35399051
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01592-y
_version_ 1784684486078758912
author Bojcic, Ruzica
Todoric, Mate
Puljak, Livia
author_facet Bojcic, Ruzica
Todoric, Mate
Puljak, Livia
author_sort Bojcic, Ruzica
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In 2007, AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs), was published, and it has since become one of the most widely used instruments for SR appraisal. In September 2017, AMSTAR 2 was published as an updated version of the tool. This mixed-methods study aimed to analyze the extent of the AMSTAR 2 uptake and explore potential barriers to its uptake. METHODS: We analyzed the frequency of AMSTAR or AMSTAR 2 use in articles published in 2018, 2019 and 2020. We surveyed authors who have used AMSTAR but not AMSTAR 2 in the analyzed time frame to identify their reasons and barriers. The inclusion criterion for those authors was that the month of manuscript submission was after September 2017, i.e. after AMSTAR 2 was published. RESULTS: We included 871 studies. The majority (N = 451; 52%) used AMSTAR 2, while 44% (N = 382) used AMSTAR, 4% (N = 31) used R-AMSTAR and others used a combination of tools. In 2018, 81% of the analyzed studies used AMSTAR, while 16% used AMSTAR 2. In 2019, 52% used AMSTAR, while 44% used AMSTAR 2. Among articles published in 2020, 28% used AMSTAR, while AMSTAR 2 was used by 69%. An author survey indicated that the authors did not use AMSTAR 2 mostly because they were not aware of it, their protocol was already established, or data collection completed at the time when the new tool was published. Barriers towards AMSTAR 2 use were lack of quantitative assessment, insufficient awareness, length, difficulties with a specific item. CONCLUSION: In articles published in 2018-2020, that were submitted to a journal after AMSTAR 2 tool was published, almost half of the authors (44%) still used AMSTAR, the old version of the tool. However, the use of AMSTAR has been declining in each subsequent year. Our survey indicated that editors and peer-reviewers did not ask the authors to use the new version of the tool. Few barriers towards using AMSTAR 2 were identified, and thus it is anticipated that the use of the old version of AMSTAR will continue to decline. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01592-y.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8996416
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89964162022-04-12 Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption Bojcic, Ruzica Todoric, Mate Puljak, Livia BMC Med Res Methodol Research BACKGROUND: In 2007, AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs), was published, and it has since become one of the most widely used instruments for SR appraisal. In September 2017, AMSTAR 2 was published as an updated version of the tool. This mixed-methods study aimed to analyze the extent of the AMSTAR 2 uptake and explore potential barriers to its uptake. METHODS: We analyzed the frequency of AMSTAR or AMSTAR 2 use in articles published in 2018, 2019 and 2020. We surveyed authors who have used AMSTAR but not AMSTAR 2 in the analyzed time frame to identify their reasons and barriers. The inclusion criterion for those authors was that the month of manuscript submission was after September 2017, i.e. after AMSTAR 2 was published. RESULTS: We included 871 studies. The majority (N = 451; 52%) used AMSTAR 2, while 44% (N = 382) used AMSTAR, 4% (N = 31) used R-AMSTAR and others used a combination of tools. In 2018, 81% of the analyzed studies used AMSTAR, while 16% used AMSTAR 2. In 2019, 52% used AMSTAR, while 44% used AMSTAR 2. Among articles published in 2020, 28% used AMSTAR, while AMSTAR 2 was used by 69%. An author survey indicated that the authors did not use AMSTAR 2 mostly because they were not aware of it, their protocol was already established, or data collection completed at the time when the new tool was published. Barriers towards AMSTAR 2 use were lack of quantitative assessment, insufficient awareness, length, difficulties with a specific item. CONCLUSION: In articles published in 2018-2020, that were submitted to a journal after AMSTAR 2 tool was published, almost half of the authors (44%) still used AMSTAR, the old version of the tool. However, the use of AMSTAR has been declining in each subsequent year. Our survey indicated that editors and peer-reviewers did not ask the authors to use the new version of the tool. Few barriers towards using AMSTAR 2 were identified, and thus it is anticipated that the use of the old version of AMSTAR will continue to decline. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01592-y. BioMed Central 2022-04-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8996416/ /pubmed/35399051 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01592-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 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
Bojcic, Ruzica
Todoric, Mate
Puljak, Livia
Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption
title Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption
title_full Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption
title_fullStr Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption
title_full_unstemmed Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption
title_short Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption
title_sort adopting amstar 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8996416/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35399051
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01592-y
work_keys_str_mv AT bojcicruzica adoptingamstar2criticalappraisaltoolforsystematicreviewsspeedofthetooluptakeandbarriersforitsadoption
AT todoricmate adoptingamstar2criticalappraisaltoolforsystematicreviewsspeedofthetooluptakeandbarriersforitsadoption
AT puljaklivia adoptingamstar2criticalappraisaltoolforsystematicreviewsspeedofthetooluptakeandbarriersforitsadoption