Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Commentary

Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement

Authors: Brittany U. Burda, Haley K. Holmer, Susan L. Norris

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is a commonly used tool to assess the quality of systematic reviews; however, modifications are needed to improve its usability, reliability, and validity. In this commentary, we summarize our experience and the experiences of others who have used AMSTAR and provide suggestions for its improvement. We propose that AMSTAR should modify a number of individual items and their instructions and responses to make them more congruent with an assessment of the methodologic quality of systematic reviews. We recommend adding new items and modifying existing items to assess the quality of the body of evidence and to address subgroup and sensitivity analyses. More detailed instructions are needed for scoring individual items across multiple reviewers, and we recommend that a total score should not be calculated. These suggestions need to be empirically tested prior to implementation.
Literature
1.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
3.
Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS ONE. 2007;2(12), e1350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Kamioka H, Tsutani K, Okuizumi H, Mutoh Y, Ohta M, Handa S, et al. Effectiveness of aquatic exercise and balneotherapy: a summary of systematic reviews based on randomized controlled trials of water immersion therapies. J Epidemiol. 2010;20(1):2–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Sequeira-Byron P, Fedorowicz Z, Jagannath VA, Sharif MO. An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS). J Appl Oral Sci. 2011;19(5):440–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Sardanelli F, Bashir H, Berzaczy D, Cannella G, Espeland A, Flor N, et al. The role of imaging specialists as authors of systematic reviews on diagnostic and interventional imaging and its impact on scientific quality: report from the EuroAIM Evidence-based Radiology Working Group. Radiology. 2014;272(2):533–40. http://​dx.​doi.​org/​10.​1148/​radiol.​14131730.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
31.
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook of systematic reviews of interventions. West Sussex: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.CrossRef
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
Institute of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2011.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
Ramchandani M, Siddiqui M, Kanwar R, Lakha M, Phi L, Giacomelli L, et al. Proteomic signature of periodontal disease in pregnancy: predictive validity for adverse outcomes. Bioinformation. 2010;5(7):300–3.CrossRef
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
Needleman I, Clarkson J, Worthington H. A practitioner’s guide to developing critical appraisal skills: reviews of research. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(5):527–30.CrossRefPubMed
56.
57.
58.
59.
Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282(11):1054–60.CrossRefPubMed
60.
61.
Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3 Suppl):21–35.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement
Authors
Brittany U. Burda
Haley K. Holmer
Susan L. Norris
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0237-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Systematic Reviews 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study

Protocol

The effects of public health policies on population health and health inequalities in European welfare states: protocol for an umbrella review

Protocol

Examining the use of process evaluations of randomised controlled trials of complex interventions addressing chronic disease in primary health care—a systematic review protocol

Protocol

Pharmacological interventions for agitation in patients with traumatic brain injury: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protocol

Assessing the validity of abbreviated literature searches for rapid reviews: protocol of a non-inferiority and meta-epidemiologic study

Protocol

Supporting successful implementation of public health interventions: protocol for a realist synthesis