AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 21 September 2017
- Vol. 358, j4008
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
Abstract
The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.This publication has 56 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Cardiovascular Risk with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Systematic Review of Population-Based Controlled Observational StudiesPLoS Medicine, 2011
- Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklistQuality of Life Research, 2011
- Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011
- A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studiesInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2010
- Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?PLoS Medicine, 2010
- AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviewsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2009
- Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behavioursEmerging Themes in Epidemiology, 2008
- Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studiesThe Lancet, 2008
- Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventionsJournal of Health Services Research & Policy, 2005