Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability
Do you wish to request the book?
Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Quality assessment versus risk of bias in systematic reviews: AMSTAR and ROBIS had similar reliability but differed in their construct and applicability
2018
Overview
The objective of the study was to assess the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of AMSTAR and ROBIS in judging individual domains and overall methodological quality/risk of bias of systematic reviews, the concurrent validity of the tools, and the time required to apply them.
This is a cross-sectional study. Five raters independently read 31 systematic reviews and applied AMSTAR and ROBIS. Fleiss' k for multiple raters for individual domains and overall methodological quality/risk of bias was calculated. Similar domains assessed by both tools and final scores were matched to explore the concurrent validity, using the Kendall tau correlation.
IRR ranged from fair to perfect for AMSTAR and from moderate to substantial for ROBIS. Kappa for overall quality/risk of bias was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.81) for AMSTAR and 0.64 (95% CI 0.54–0.74) for ROBIS. We judged most of the reviews at intermediate quality with AMSTAR (53%), while judgments were split in high (53%) and low (47%) risk of bias with ROBIS. The correlation between judgments on similar domains ranged from moderate to high, while it was fair on the overall judgment (K = 0.35, 95% CI 0.21–0.49). The mean time to complete ROBIS was about double that for AMSTAR.
AMSTAR and ROBIS offer similar IRR but differ in their construct and applicability.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
Subject
