Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies

被引:76
|
作者
Pieper, Dawid [1 ]
Puljak, Livia [2 ]
Gonzalez-Lorenzo, Marien [3 ,4 ]
Minozzi, Silvia [5 ]
机构
[1] Witten Herdecke Univ, Inst Res Operat Med, Evidence Based Hlth Serv Res, Fac Hlth,Sch Med, Ostmerheimer Str 200, D-51109 Cologne, Germany
[2] Catholic Univ Croatia, Ilica 242, Zagreb 10000, Croatia
[3] Humanitas Univ, Dept Biomed Sci, Milan, Italy
[4] Humanitas Clin & Res Ctr, IBD Ctr, Milan, Italy
[5] Univ Milan, Dept Biomed Sci Hlth, Milan, Italy
关键词
Systematic reviews; AMSTAR; 2; ROBIS; Methodological quality; Risk of bias; METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY; CRITICAL-APPRAISAL; MEASUREMENT TOOL; COCHRANE; RISK; BIAS; RELIABILITY; LIMITATIONS; CHALLENGES;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.004
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To compare A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) with a tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) in terms of validity, reliability, and applicability. Study Design and Setting: We analyzed 30 systematic reviews (SRs) that included randomized and nonrandomized studies, with Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs sampled in 1:1 ratio. Four reviewers assessed independently all 30 SRs with AMSTAR 2, followed by ROBIS. We calculated Fleiss' Kappa as a measure of inter-rater reliability (IRR) across 4 raters. Results: The IRR for scoring the overall confidence in the SRs with AMSTAR 2 and the overall domain in ROBIS was fair (AMSTAR 2: kappa = 0.30, 95% [confidence interval] CI: 0.17 to 0.43; ROBIS: kappa = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.42). AMSTAR 2 confidence in review ratings strongly correlated with the overall domain rating in ROBIS (Spearman r(s) = 0.84). Mean time for scoring AMSTAR 2 was slightly higher than for ROBIS (18 vs. 16 min), with huge differences between the reviewers. Conclusion: Both AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS can be applied to SRs including both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Measurement properties of ROBIS seemed not to be much different when comparing with other studies that include only SRs of RCTs. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:26 / 33
页数:8
相关论文
共 8 条
  • [1] An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies for fibromyalgia using both AMSTAR and ROBIS as quality assessment tools
    Perry, Rachel
    Leach, Verity
    Davies, Philippa
    Penfold, Chris
    Ness, Andy
    Churchill, Rachel
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, 6
  • [2] An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies for fibromyalgia using both AMSTAR and ROBIS as quality assessment tools
    Rachel Perry
    Verity Leach
    Philippa Davies
    Chris Penfold
    Andy Ness
    Rachel Churchill
    Systematic Reviews, 6
  • [3] A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2
    R. Perry
    A. Whitmarsh
    V. Leach
    P. Davies
    Systematic Reviews, 10
  • [4] A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2
    Perry, R.
    Whitmarsh, A.
    Leach, V.
    Davies, P.
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2021, 10 (01)
  • [5] AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both
    Shea, Beverley J.
    Reeves, Barnaby C.
    Wells, George
    Thuku, Micere
    Hamel, Candyce
    Moran, Julian
    Moher, David
    Tugwell, Peter
    Welch, Vivian
    Kristjansson, Elizabeth
    Henry, David A.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2017, 358
  • [6] Differences in interaction and subgroup-specific effects were observed between randomized and nonrandomized studies in three empirical examples
    Schmidt, Amand F.
    Rovers, Maroeska M.
    Klungel, Olaf H.
    Hoes, Arno W.
    Knol, Mirjam J.
    Nielen, Mirjam
    de Boer, Antonius
    Groenwold, Rolf H. H.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2013, 66 (06) : 599 - 607
  • [7] No inexplicable disagreements between real-world data-based nonrandomized controlled studies and randomized controlled trials were found
    Mathes, Tim
    Rombey, Tanja
    Kuss, Oliver
    Pieper, Dawid
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2021, 133 : 1 - 13
  • [8] A Critical Overview of Systematic Reviews of Chemotherapy for Advanced and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer using both AMS-TAR2 and ROBIS as Quality Assessment Tools
    Dang, Amit
    Chidirala, Surendar
    Veeranki, Prashanth
    Vallish, B. N.
    REVIEWS ON RECENT CLINICAL TRIALS, 2021, 16 (02) : 180 - 192