AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

AMSTAR 2: инструмент критической оценки систематических обзоров, включающих рандомизированные или нерандомизированные исследования медицинских вмешательств либо оба типа исследований
Barnaby C Reeves, Vivian Welch, David Moher, George A. Wells, Peter Tugwell, Elizabeth Kristjansson, Beverley Shea, Candyce Hamel, Micere Thuku, Julian Moran, David Henry
2017-09-21

AMSTAR 2critical appraisal toolnon-randomised studiesrandomised studiessystematic reviews
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.
1
AMSTAR 2 provides a more comprehensive and detailed appraisal framework than existing instruments for identifying high-quality systematic reviews.
2
AMSTAR 2 updates the original AMSTAR tool for critical appraisal of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions.
3
The tool assesses reviews including randomised studies, non-randomised studies, or both, addressing the growing use of observational evidence.
4
The tool is intended to support clinical and policy decision-makers in distinguishing trustworthy reviews amid risks of bias.

systematic reviews of randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions

critical appraisal and identification of review quality, including susceptibility to bias

Publication Details
Publication Date
2017-09-21
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Cited by
10849
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
Barnaby C Reeves
Vivian Welch
David Moher
George A. Wells
Peter Tugwell
Elizabeth Kristjansson
Beverley Shea
Candyce Hamel
Micere Thuku
Julian Moran
David Henry
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat →
Make a presentation
100%