Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study
Abstract Background Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can provide the best evidence to inform decision-making, but their methodological and reporting quality varies. Tools exist to guide the critical appraisal of quality and risk of bias in SRs, but evaluations of their...
Main Authors: | Allison Gates, Michelle Gates, Gonçalo Duarte, Maria Cary, Monika Becker, Barbara Prediger, Ben Vandermeer, Ricardo M. Fernandes, Dawid Pieper, Lisa Hartling |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2018-06-01
|
Series: | Systematic Reviews |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-018-0746-1 |
Similar Items
-
Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
by: Michelle Pollock, et al.
Published: (2017-03-01) -
An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies for fibromyalgia using both AMSTAR and ROBIS as quality assessment tools
by: Rachel Perry, et al.
Published: (2017-05-01) -
Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR
by: Svjetlana Dosenovic, et al.
Published: (2018-05-01) -
Inter-rater reliability of AMSTAR is dependent on the pair of reviewers
by: Dawid Pieper, et al.
Published: (2017-07-01) -
How is AMSTAR applied by authors – a call for better reporting
by: Dawid Pieper, et al.
Published: (2018-06-01)