Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
by
Gates, Allison
, Cary, Maria
, Becker, Monika
, Prediger, Barbara
, Vandermeer, Ben
, Gates, Michelle
, Duarte, Gonçalo
, Pieper, Dawid
, Fernandes, Ricardo M.
, Hartling, Lisa
in
AMSTAR
/ AMSTAR 2
/ Appraisals
/ Bias
/ Confidence intervals
/ Epidemiology
/ Evaluation
/ Evidence-Based Medicine
/ Humans
/ Internal Medicine
/ Methodological quality
/ Observer Variation
/ Prospective Studies
/ Quality Control
/ Reliability analysis
/ Reproducibility of Results
/ Risk
/ Risk of bias
/ ROBIS
/ Systematic review
/ Systematic reviews
/ Systematic Reviews as Topic - standards
/ Usability
2020
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.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
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 and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
by
Gates, Allison
, Cary, Maria
, Becker, Monika
, Prediger, Barbara
, Vandermeer, Ben
, Gates, Michelle
, Duarte, Gonçalo
, Pieper, Dawid
, Fernandes, Ricardo M.
, Hartling, Lisa
in
AMSTAR
/ AMSTAR 2
/ Appraisals
/ Bias
/ Confidence intervals
/ Epidemiology
/ Evaluation
/ Evidence-Based Medicine
/ Humans
/ Internal Medicine
/ Methodological quality
/ Observer Variation
/ Prospective Studies
/ Quality Control
/ Reliability analysis
/ Reproducibility of Results
/ Risk
/ Risk of bias
/ ROBIS
/ Systematic review
/ Systematic reviews
/ Systematic Reviews as Topic - standards
/ Usability
2020
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
by
Gates, Allison
, Cary, Maria
, Becker, Monika
, Prediger, Barbara
, Vandermeer, Ben
, Gates, Michelle
, Duarte, Gonçalo
, Pieper, Dawid
, Fernandes, Ricardo M.
, Hartling, Lisa
in
AMSTAR
/ AMSTAR 2
/ Appraisals
/ Bias
/ Confidence intervals
/ Epidemiology
/ Evaluation
/ Evidence-Based Medicine
/ Humans
/ Internal Medicine
/ Methodological quality
/ Observer Variation
/ Prospective Studies
/ Quality Control
/ Reliability analysis
/ Reproducibility of Results
/ Risk
/ Risk of bias
/ ROBIS
/ Systematic review
/ Systematic reviews
/ Systematic Reviews as Topic - standards
/ Usability
2020
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.
Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
Journal Article
Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers
2020
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
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).
This is a prospective evaluation using 30 systematic reviews of randomized trials, undertaken at three international centers.
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.
Improved guidance may be needed to facilitate the consistent interpretation and application of the newer tools (especially ROBIS).
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.