Evaluating Breast Reconstruction Reviews Using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background:
Breast reconstruction is an important aspect in breast cancer treatment. Methods:
A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was performed. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that focused on breast reconstruction and were published between 2000 and 2020 were included. Quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Study characteristics were extracted, including journal and impact factor, year of publication, country affiliation, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of citations, and number of studies included. Results:
The average AMSTAR score was moderate (5.32). There was a significant increase in AMSTAR score (P < 0.01) and number of studies (P < 0.01) over time. There were no significant correlations between AMSTAR score and impact factor (P = 0.038), and AMSTAR score and number of citations (P = 0.52), but there was a significant association between AMSTAR score and number of studies (P = 0.013). Studies that adhered to the PRISMA statement had a higher AMSTAR score on average (P < 0.01). Conclusions:
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses about breast reconstruction had, on average, a moderate AMSTAR score. The number of studies and methodological quality have increased over time. Study characteristics including adherence to PRISMA guidelines are associated with improved methodological quality. Further improvements in specific AMSTAR domains would improve the overall methodological quality.
SUBMITTER: Yuan M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8604032 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews.MethodologyAMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently.ConclusionsThe sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearson's R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearson's R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were -0.19+/-1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 'AMSTAR points'. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC2131785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOur objective was to develop an instrument to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews, building upon previous tools, empirical evidence and expert consensus.MethodsA 37-item assessment tool was formed by combining 1) the enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), 2) a checklist created by Sacks, and 3) three additional items recently judged to be of methodological importance. This tool was applied to 99 paper-based and 52 electronic systematic reviews. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify underlying components. The results were considered by methodological experts using a nominal group technique aimed at item reduction and design of an assessment tool with face and content validity.ResultsThe factor analysis identified 11 components. From each component, one item was selected by the nominal group. The resulting instrument was judged to have face and content validity.ConclusionA measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed. The tool consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Additional studies are needed with a focus on the reproducibility and construct validity of AMSTAR, before strong recommendations can be made on its use.
| S-EPMC1810543 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBreast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic surgeries worldwide. Therefore, it is imperative to have evidence with high methodological quality to guide clinical decision making.ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) focused on breast augmentation.MethodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was performed. SRs that have a particular focus on breast augmentation and were published in the top 15 plastic and reconstructive surgery journals were included. Quality assessment was performed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Study characteristics were extracted including journal and impact factor, year of publication, country affiliation of the corresponding author, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of citations, and number of studies included.ResultsAmong the 22 studies included for analysis, the mean AMSTAR score was moderate (5.55), with no SR achieving good quality (AMSTAR score of ≥9). There were no significant associations between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor, number of citations, year of publication, or number of included studies. Studies that reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines on average scored higher on the AMSTAR tool (P = 0.03).ConclusionsThe methodological quality of reviews about breast augmentation was found to be moderate, with no significant increase in studies or quality over time. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines and increased appraisal of SRs about breast augmentation using methodological assessment tools would further strengthen methodological quality and confidence in study findings.
| S-EPMC8259036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOverviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. It is recommended that authors assess and report the methodological quality of SRs in overviews-for example, using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Currently, there is variation in whether and how overview authors assess and report SR quality, and limited guidance is available. Our objectives were to: examine methodological considerations involved in using AMSTAR to assess the quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs in overviews of healthcare interventions; identify challenges (and develop potential decision rules) when using AMSTAR in overviews; and examine the potential impact of considering methodological quality when making inclusion decisions in overviews.MethodsWe selected seven overviews of healthcare interventions and included all SRs meeting each overview's inclusion criteria. For each SR, two reviewers independently conducted AMSTAR assessments with consensus and discussed challenges encountered. We also examined the correlation between AMSTAR assessments and SR results/conclusions.ResultsNinety-five SRs were included (30 Cochrane, 65 non-Cochrane). Mean AMSTAR assessments (9.6/11 vs. 5.5/11; p < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (AC1 statistic: 0.84 vs. 0.69; "almost perfect" vs. "substantial" using the Landis & Koch criteria) were higher for Cochrane compared to non-Cochrane SRs. Four challenges were identified when applying AMSTAR in overviews: the scope of the SRs and overviews often differed; SRs examining similar topics sometimes made different methodological decisions; reporting of non-Cochrane SRs was sometimes poor; and some non-Cochrane SRs included other SRs as well as primary studies. Decision rules were developed to address each challenge. We found no evidence that AMSTAR assessments were correlated with SR results/conclusions.ConclusionsResults indicate that the AMSTAR tool can be used successfully in overviews that include Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, though decision rules may be useful to circumvent common challenges. Findings support existing recommendations that quality assessments of SRs in overviews be conducted independently, in duplicate, with a process for consensus. Results also suggest that using methodological quality to guide inclusion decisions (e.g., to exclude poorly conducted and reported SRs) may not introduce bias into the overview process.
| S-EPMC5364717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Systematic reviews (SRs) in the field of neuropathic pain (NeuP) are increasingly important for decision-making. However, methodological flaws in SRs can reduce the validity of conclusions. Hence, it is important to assess the methodological quality of NeuP SRs critically. Additionally, it remains unclear which assessment tool should be used. We studied the methodological quality of SRs published in the field of NeuP and compared two assessment tools. METHODS:We systematically searched 5 electronic databases to identify SRs of randomized controlled trials of interventions for NeuP available up to March 2015. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR) tools. The scores were converted to percentiles and ranked into 4 grades to allow comparison between the two checklists. Gwet's AC1 coefficient was used for interrater reliability assessment. RESULTS:The 97 included SRs had a wide range of methodological quality scores (AMSTAR median (IQR): 6 (5-8) vs. R-AMSTAR median (IQR): 30 (26-35)). The overall agreement score between the 2 raters was 0.62 (95% CI 0.39-0.86) for AMSTAR and 0.62 (95% CI 0.53-0.70) for R-AMSTAR. The 31 Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) were consistently ranked higher than the 66 non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCSRs). The analysis of individual domains showed the best compliance in a comprehensive literature search (item 3) on both checklists. The results for the domain that was the least compliant differed: conflict of interest (item 11) was the item most poorly reported on AMSTAR vs. publication bias assessment (item 10) on R-AMSTAR. A high positive correlation between the total AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR scores for all SRs, as well as for CSRs and NCSRs, was observed. CONCLUSIONS:The methodological quality of analyzed SRs in the field of NeuP was not optimal, and CSRs had a higher quality than NCSRs. Both AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools produced comparable quality ratings. Our results point out to weaknesses in the methodology of existing SRs on interventions for the management NeuP and call for future improvement by better adherence to analyzed quality checklists, either AMSTAR or R-AMSTAR.
| S-EPMC5941595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Increasing numbers of systematic reviews (SRs) on total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been published in recent years, but their quality has been unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs on TKA and THA. METHODS:We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Databases (including HTA, DARE, and CDSR), CBM, CNKI, Wang Fang, and VIP, from January 2014 to December 2015 for THA and TKA. The quality of SRs was assessed using the modified 25-item "Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews" (mod-AMSTAR) tool, which was based on the AMSTAR scale. A T-test, nonparametric test, and linear regression were conducted to assess the relationship between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality. RESULTS:Sixty-three SRs were included, from which the majority of SRs (50, 79.4%) were conducted in Asia. Only 4 reviews were rated as high quality, and most were weak in providing a priori design (6, 9.5%), not limiting the publication type (8, 13%), providing an excluded primary studies list (4, 6.3%) and reporting support for the included primary studies (1, 1.6%). Reviews published in English journals performed better than did Chinese journals in duplicate data extraction (81.3% vs 46.7%, p =?0.017; 70.8% vs 33.3%, p =?0.009) and providing source of support for the SR (87.5% vs 33.3%, P <?0.001). Reviews published in journals with a higher impact factor were associated with a higher mod-AMSTAR score (regression coefficient: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.11-0.65; P =?0.006). CONCLUSION:The methodological quality of the included SRs is far from satisfactory. Authors of SRs should conform to the recommendations outlined in the mod-AMSTAR items. Areas needing improvement were providing a priori design, not limiting the publication type, providing an excluded primary studies list, and reporting conflicts of interest.
| S-EPMC5857117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAMSTAR-2 ('A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2') and ROBIS ('Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews') are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition.MethodsWe performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116).ResultsWe found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet's agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers' conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan.ConclusionsAmong the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users' wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results.
| S-EPMC8627612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMeta-analysis (MA) of randomised trials is considered to be one of the best approaches for summarising high-quality evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatments. However, methodological flaws in MAs can reduce the validity of conclusions, subsequently impairing the quality of decision making.AimsTo assess the methodological quality of MAs on COPD treatments.MethodsA cross-sectional study on MAs of COPD trials. MAs published during 2000-2013 were sampled from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool.ResultsSeventy-nine MAs were sampled. Only 18% considered the scientific quality of primary studies when formulating conclusions and 49% used appropriate meta-analytic methods to combine findings. The problems were particularly acute among MAs on pharmacological treatments. In 48% of MAs the authors did not report conflict of interest. Fifty-eight percent reported harmful effects of treatment. Publication bias was not assessed in 65% of MAs, and only 10% had searched non-English databases.ConclusionsThe methodological quality of the included MAs was disappointing. Consideration of scientific quality when formulating conclusions should be made explicit. Future MAs should improve on reporting conflict of interest and harm, assessment of publication bias, prevention of language bias and use of appropriate meta-analytic methods.
| S-EPMC4498191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop ROBIS, a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than in primary studies).Study design and settingWe used four-stage approach to develop ROBIS: define the scope, review the evidence base, hold a face-to-face meeting, and refine the tool through piloting.ResultsROBIS is currently aimed at four broad categories of reviews mainly within health care settings: interventions, diagnosis, prognosis, and etiology. The target audience of ROBIS is primarily guideline developers, authors of overviews of systematic reviews ("reviews of reviews"), and review authors who might want to assess or avoid risk of bias in their reviews. The tool is completed in three phases: (1) assess relevance (optional), (2) identify concerns with the review process, and (3) judge risk of bias. Phase 2 covers four domains through which bias may be introduced into a systematic review: study eligibility criteria; identification and selection of studies; data collection and study appraisal; and synthesis and findings. Phase 3 assesses the overall risk of bias in the interpretation of review findings and whether this considered limitations identified in any of the phase 2 domains. Signaling questions are included to help judge concerns with the review process (phase 2) and the overall risk of bias in the review (phase 3); these questions flag aspects of review design related to the potential for bias and aim to help assessors judge risk of bias in the review process, results, and conclusions.ConclusionsROBIS is the first rigorously developed tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC4687950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy. SUMMARY:MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched for SRs evaluating interventions addressing polypharmacy in adults published from January 2004 to February 2017. Two authors independently screened, appraised, and extracted information. SRs with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores below 8 were excluded. After extraction of relevant conclusions from each SR, evidence was summarized and conclusions compared. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality. Six SRs met the inclusion criteria, 4 of which used meta-analytic pooling. Five SRs focused on older adults. Four were not restricted to any specific disease type, whereas 1 focused on proton pump inhibitors and another focused on patients with severe dementia. Care settings and measured outcomes varied widely. SRs examining the impact on patient-centered outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, patient satisfaction, and utilization, found inconsistent evidence regarding the benefit of polypharmacy interventions, but most concluded that interventions had either null or uncertain impact. Two SRs assessing medication appropriateness found very low-quality evidence of modest improvements with polypharmacy interventions. CONCLUSION:An overview of SRs of interventions to address polypharmacy found 6 recent and high-quality SRs, mostly focused on older adults, in which both process and outcome measures were used to evaluate interventions. Despite the low quality of evidence in the underlying primary studies, both SRs that assessed medication appropriateness found evidence that polypharmacy interventions improved it. However, there was no consistent evidence of any impact on downstream patient-centered outcomes such as healthcare utilization, morbidity, or mortality.
| S-EPMC7170727 | biostudies-literature