Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gates, Michelle
Publication Date: 2020
Other Authors: Gates, Allison, Duarte, Gonçalo Silva, Cary, Maria, Becker, Monika, Prediger, Barbara, Vandermeer, Ben, Fernandes, Ricardo M., Pieper, Dawid, Hartling, Lisa
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
Download full: http://hdl.handle.net/10451/55294
Summary: © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
id RCAP_1a9ce4d7dd7e6233f2079201086a70d6
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.ulisboa.pt:10451/55294
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository_id_str https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160
spelling Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centersAMSTARAMSTAR 2Methodological qualityROBISRisk of biasSystematic reviews© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the inter-rater and intercenter reliability, usability, and utility of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), AMSTAR 2, and Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS). Study design and setting: This is a prospective evaluation using 30 systematic reviews of randomized trials, undertaken at three international centers. Results: Reviewers completed AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS in median (interquartile range) 15.7 (11.3), 19.7 (12.1), and 28.7 (17.4) minutes and reached consensus in 2.6 (3.2), 4.6 (5.3), and 10.9 (10.8) minutes, respectively. Across all centers, inter-rater reliability was substantial to almost perfect for 8/11 AMSTAR, 9/16 AMSTAR 2, and 12/24 ROBIS items. Intercenter reliability was substantial to almost perfect for 6/11 AMSTAR, 12/16 AMSTAR 2, and 7/24 ROBIS items. Intercenter reliability for confidence in the results of the review or overall risk of bias was moderate (Gwet's first-order agreement coefficient (AC1) 0.58, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.30 to 0.85) to substantial (AC1 0.74, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.85) for AMSTAR 2 and poor (AC1 -0.21, 95% CI: -0.55 to 0.13) to moderate (AC1 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.83) for ROBIS. It is not clear whether using the appraisals of any tool as an inclusion criterion would alter an overview's findings. Conclusions: Improved guidance may be needed to facilitate the consistent interpretation and application of the newer tools (especially ROBIS).ElsevierRepositório da Universidade de LisboaGates, MichelleGates, AllisonDuarte, Gonçalo SilvaCary, MariaBecker, MonikaPrediger, BarbaraVandermeer, BenFernandes, Ricardo M.Pieper, DawidHartling, Lisa2022-11-29T17:03:04Z20202020-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10451/55294engJ Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Sep;125:9-150895-435610.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.0261878-5921info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2025-03-17T14:51:25Zoai:repositorio.ulisboa.pt:10451/55294Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-29T03:26:52.982473Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
title Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
spellingShingle Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
Gates, Michelle
AMSTAR
AMSTAR 2
Methodological quality
ROBIS
Risk of bias
Systematic reviews
title_short Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
title_full Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
title_fullStr Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
title_full_unstemmed Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
title_sort Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
author Gates, Michelle
author_facet Gates, Michelle
Gates, Allison
Duarte, Gonçalo Silva
Cary, Maria
Becker, Monika
Prediger, Barbara
Vandermeer, Ben
Fernandes, Ricardo M.
Pieper, Dawid
Hartling, Lisa
author_role author
author2 Gates, Allison
Duarte, Gonçalo Silva
Cary, Maria
Becker, Monika
Prediger, Barbara
Vandermeer, Ben
Fernandes, Ricardo M.
Pieper, Dawid
Hartling, Lisa
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Gates, Michelle
Gates, Allison
Duarte, Gonçalo Silva
Cary, Maria
Becker, Monika
Prediger, Barbara
Vandermeer, Ben
Fernandes, Ricardo M.
Pieper, Dawid
Hartling, Lisa
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv AMSTAR
AMSTAR 2
Methodological quality
ROBIS
Risk of bias
Systematic reviews
topic AMSTAR
AMSTAR 2
Methodological quality
ROBIS
Risk of bias
Systematic reviews
description © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
2022-11-29T17:03:04Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10451/55294
url http://hdl.handle.net/10451/55294
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Sep;125:9-15
0895-4356
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.026
1878-5921
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
collection Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv info@rcaap.pt
_version_ 1833601702203228160

Similar Items