Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.

<h4>Background</h4>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 t...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Ivor Popovich, Bethany Windsor, Vanessa Jordan, Marian Showell, Bev Shea, Cynthia M Farquhar
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/15363995574b4b239ec891054dd54404
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:15363995574b4b239ec891054dd54404
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:15363995574b4b239ec891054dd544042021-11-18T08:03:10ZMethodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0050403https://doaj.org/article/15363995574b4b239ec891054dd544042012-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23300526/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>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.<h4>Conclusion</h4>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 PopovichBethany WindsorVanessa JordanMarian ShowellBev SheaCynthia M FarquharPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 7, Iss 12, p e50403 (2012)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Ivor Popovich Bethany Windsor Vanessa Jordan Marian Showell Bev Shea Cynthia M Farquhar Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.
description	<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>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.<h4>Conclusion</h4>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.
format	article
author	Ivor Popovich Bethany Windsor Vanessa Jordan Marian Showell Bev Shea Cynthia M Farquhar
author_facet	Ivor Popovich Bethany Windsor Vanessa Jordan Marian Showell Bev Shea Cynthia M Farquhar
author_sort	Ivor Popovich
title	Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.
title_short	Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.
title_full	Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.
title_fullStr	Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.
title_full_unstemmed	Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.
title_sort	methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2012
url	https://doaj.org/article/15363995574b4b239ec891054dd54404
work_keys_str_mv	AT ivorpopovich methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches AT bethanywindsor methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches AT vanessajordan methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches AT marianshowell methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches AT bevshea methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches AT cynthiamfarquhar methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsinsubfertilityacomparisonoftwodifferentapproaches
_version_	1718422590283841536

Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches.

Ejemplares similares