These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Minor differences were found between AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS in the assessment of systematic reviews including both randomized and nonrandomized studies.
    Author: Pieper D, Puljak L, González-Lorenzo M, Minozzi S.
    Journal: J Clin Epidemiol; 2019 Apr; 108():26-33. PubMed ID: 30543911.
    Abstract:
    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: κ = 0.30, 95% [confidence interval] CI: 0.17 to 0.43; ROBIS: κ = 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 rs = 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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]