Use of AMSTAR-2 in the methodological assessment of systematic reviews: protocol for a methodological study

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses (MAs) are widely used in resolving questions in various healthcare areas (such as, traditional Chinese medicine, public health and surgery), and they are the cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare. However, the reliability of SRs is typically influenced by their methodological quality. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and AMSTAR-2 tools can assess the methodological quality of SRs, and the use of AMSTAR has been investigated. However, AMSTAR-2 is now widely used to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, but the use of AMSTAR-2 for determining the methodological quality of SRs has not yet been investigated and assessed thoroughly. Thus, we designed the present study to investigate the use of AMSTAR-2 in studies that assessed the methodological quality of a sample of SRs with the AMSTAR-2 and provide references to potential users of AMSTAR-2 tool. Methods Four commonly used electronic databases including PubMed, EmBase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science will be searched following a comprehensive search strategy to identify and retrieve studies that have used AMSTAR-2 tool for evaluating the methodological quality of SRs. Two independent authors will retrieve bibliometric information and methodological data, including all author names, time of publication, and journal names, whether a specific score value was given for each item, and whether overall quality assessment was performed. Descriptive statistical analyses will be used to present the study results, e.g., frequencies and percentages, mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR). In addition, subgroup analyses will be performed to identify the methodological differences (e.g., the reporting of study designs included in SRs) between overviews and methodological studies. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) will be calculated to measure the methodological differences. Cytoscape 3.7.1 software tool will be used to construct collaboration network maps. Further, Microsoft Office Excel 2016 and Stata 12.0 will be used to manage and analyze data. Discussion The results of this study will identify any gaps in the use of AMSTAR-2 and important bibliometric features, such as active researchers and journals, provide guidance to researchers in various healthcare areas (such as, traditional Chinese medicine and public health) for using AMSTAR-2 tool and help them in developing cooperation and submitting their manuscripts.

[1]  D. Pieper,et al.  How is AMSTAR applied by authors – a call for better reporting , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[2]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study , 2013, BMJ Open.

[3]  P. Shannon,et al.  Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. , 2003, Genome research.

[4]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  P. Dahm,et al.  A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer , 2018, BMJ Open.

[6]  Cuncun Lu Comment on: "Ginger for health care - An overview of systematic reviews". , 2019, Complementary therapies in medicine.

[7]  F. Song,et al.  Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  J. McKenzie,et al.  Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1—purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction , 2017, Systematic Reviews.

[9]  Xiaobin Zhou,et al.  Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer’s disease before and after PRISMA introduction , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[10]  Rachel Churchill,et al.  ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  Kehu Yang,et al.  Top-100 Most Cited Publications Concerning Network Pharmacology: A Bibliometric Analysis , 2019, Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM.

[12]  Kehu Yang,et al.  Trace and evaluation systems for health services quality in rural and remote areas: a systematic review , 2018, Journal of Public Health.

[13]  A. Cipriani,et al.  Meta-Review: Network Meta-Analyses in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. , 2019, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

[14]  D. Pieper,et al.  Can AMSTAR also be applied to systematic reviews of non-randomized studies? , 2014, BMC Research Notes.

[15]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Going from evidence to recommendations , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  Kehu Yang,et al.  The methodological quality of robotic surgical meta-analyses needed to be improved: a cross-sectional study. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  C. Faggion,et al.  Systematic reviews in orthodontics: Impact of the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist on completeness of reporting. , 2019, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[19]  David Moher,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement , 2018 .

[20]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[21]  Becky Skidmore,et al.  Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  Ya-nan Luo,et al.  Methodological and reporting quality evaluation of systematic reviews on acupuncture in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome: A systematic review. , 2018, Complementary therapies in clinical practice.

[24]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations , 2015, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[25]  D. Pieper,et al.  Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[26]  Jinhui Tian,et al.  Methodology and reporting quality of Cochrane network meta-analyses provides the room to improve the network geometry and inconsistency. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[27]  Kehu Yang,et al.  Ginger for health care: An overview of systematic reviews. , 2019, Complementary therapies in medicine.

[28]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Interventions for Retina and Vitreous Conditions. , 2019, JAMA ophthalmology.

[29]  P. Tugwell,et al.  AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[30]  M. Oremus,et al.  PRISMA and AMSTAR show systematic reviews on health literacy and cancer screening are of good quality. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[31]  D. Pieper,et al.  A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[32]  J. Ioannidis Next-generation systematic reviews: prospective meta-analysis, individual-level data, networks and umbrella reviews , 2017, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[33]  G. Guyatt,et al.  How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature. , 2014, JAMA.