Document Detail

Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  23300526     Owner:  NLM     Status:  In-Data-Review    
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are used widely to guide health care decisions. Several tools have been created to assess systematic review quality. The measurement tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews known as the AMSTAR tool applies a yes/no score to eleven relevant domains of review methodology. This tool has been reworked so that each domain is scored based on a four point scale, producing R-AMSTAR.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We aimed to compare the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools in assessing systematic reviews in the field of assisted reproduction for subfertility. All published systematic reviews on assisted reproductive technology, with the latest search for studies taking place from 2007-2011, were considered. Reviews that contained no included studies or considered diagnostic outcomes were excluded. Thirty each of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were randomly selected from a search of relevant databases. Both tools were then applied to all sixty reviews. The results were converted to percentage scores and all reviews graded and ranked based on this. AMSTAR produced a much wider variation in percentage scores and achieved higher inter-rater reliability than R-AMSTAR according to kappa statistics. The average rating for Cochrane reviews was consistent between the two tools (88.3% for R-AMSTAR versus 83.6% for AMSTAR) but inconsistent for non-Cochrane reviews (63.9% R-AMSTAR vs. 38.5% AMSTAR). In comparing the rankings generated between the two tools Cochrane reviews changed an average of 4.2 places, compared to 2.9 for non-Cochrane.
CONCLUSION: R-AMSTAR provided greater guidance in the assessment of domains and produced quantitative results. However, there were many problems with the construction of its criteria and AMSTAR was much easier to apply consistently. We recommend that AMSTAR incorporates the findings of this study and produces additional guidance for its application in order to improve its reliability and usefulness.
Ivor Popovich; Bethany Windsor; Vanessa Jordan; Marian Showell; Bev Shea; Cynthia M Farquhar
Related Documents :
16805176 - Chronic intestinal obstruction due to rectosigmoid endometriosis: a case report.
1410566 - Computed tomographic findings of small-bowel volvulus.
14614286 - Lymphosarcoma in a brown bear (ursus arctos).
16036296 - A rare case of ileal embedding by an intrauterine device.
1281386 - Atypical basal cell hyperplasia of the prostate.
23168796 - Chemcomm: onwards and upwards.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2012-12-28
Journal Detail:
Title:  PloS one     Volume:  7     ISSN:  1932-6203     ISO Abbreviation:  PLoS ONE     Publication Date:  2012  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-01-09     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101285081     Medline TA:  PLoS One     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  e50403     Citation Subset:  IM    
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  What maintains the central north pacific genetic discontinuity in pacific herring?
Next Document:  Accelerating Image Reconstruction in Dual-Head PET System by GPU and Symmetry Properties.