User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary [PDF]
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2023 Background ‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’ (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary
Karina Karolina De Santis +5 more
doaj +6 more sources
A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2 [PDF]
Systematic Reviews, 2021 Background AMSTAR-2 is a 16-item assessment tool to check the quality of a systematic review and establish whether the most important elements are reported.
R. Perry +3 more
doaj +8 more sources
Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study [PDF]
Systematic Reviews, 2018 Background Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can provide the best evidence to inform decision-making, but their methodological and reporting quality varies.
Allison Gates +9 more
doaj +6 more sources
A Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analysis Studies in Dance Therapy Using AMSTAR and AMSTAR 2 [PDF]
Healthcare (Switzerland), 2020 Although earlier meta-analysis studies have provided evidence-based information useful for decision-making, debate regarding their quality continues. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of meta-analysis studies in the field of dance therapy (DT) using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and AMSTAR 2 assessment tools.
Hye-Ryeon Kim, Chang－Hwan Choi
exaly +5 more sources
Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption [PDF]
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2022 Background In 2007, AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs), was published, and it has since become one of the most widely used instruments for SR appraisal.
Ruzica Bojcic +2 more
doaj +4 more sources
AMSTAR 2 appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of heart failure from high-impact journals [PDF]
Systematic Reviews, 2022 Background The Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 is a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of interventions.
Lin Li +7 more
doaj +5 more sources
The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study [PDF]
Heliyon, 2020 Background: Several standards have been developed to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). One widely used tool is the AMSTAR. A recent update - AMSTAR 2 - is a 16 item evaluation tool that enables a detailed assessment of SR that ...
Katja Matthias +2 more
exaly +4 more sources
Critically Low Confidence in the Results Produced by Spine Surgery Systematic Reviews: An AMSTAR-2 Evaluation From 4 Spine Journals [PDF]
Global Spine Journal, 2020 Study Design: A systematic cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews (SRs). Objective: To evaluate the methodological quality of spine surgery SRs published in 2018 using the updated AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal instrument.
Joseph R Dettori +2 more
exaly +3 more sources
Impact and Treatment of Sarcopenia in Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy: A Multidisciplinary, AMSTAR-2 Compliant Review of Systematic Reviews and Metanalyses [PDF]
Frontiers in Oncology, 2022 BackgroundSarcopenia (SP) is defined as the quantitative and functional impairment of skeletal muscles. SP is commonly related to older age and is frequent in patients with cancer.
Federica Medici +14 more
doaj +5 more sources
A Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta‐Analyses on Sleep Disorder Treatments Using AMSTAR 2 [PDF]
Brain and BehaviorBackground: Meta‐analyses (MAs) provide up‐to‐date, quantified evidence on treatment effects, which may be useful for clinical and policy decision‐making. However, the quality of MAs varies, and methodological flaws can limit their reliability.
Leonard Ho +5 more
doaj +4 more sources