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
2017-09-21
SCID: 54.1/qggd9euv
Discuss with AI
AMSTAR 2critical appraisal toolnon-randomised studiesrandomised studiessystematic reviews
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
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.
Key Findings
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.
Research Object
systematic reviews of randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions
Research Subject
critical appraisal and identification of review quality, including susceptibility to bias
Publication Details
Publication Date
2017-09-21
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Cited by
10849
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest
References available in scid.ai8
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement2009
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement2009
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials2011
The “Golden Age” of Probiotics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Observational Studies in Preterm Infants2017
Two new Later Stone Age sites from the Final Pleistocene in the Falémé Valley, eastern Senegal2024
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting2000
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions2016
Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis2022
Cited by7
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews2021
PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews2021
Effectiveness of physical activity interventions for improving depression, anxiety and distress: an overview of systematic reviews2023
Prevention and treatment of peri‐implant diseases—The <scp>EFP S3</scp> level clinical practice guideline2023
Integrative Oncology Care of Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression in Adults With Cancer: Society for Integrative Oncology–ASCO Guideline2023
Prevalence of mental disorders in South Asia: A systematic review of reviews2023
A systematic review to evaluate the risk of bias of meta-analyses reporting experimental educational interventions focused on academic performance2024