Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Systematic reviews are widely used by researchers and decision-makers to guide recommendations. The quality of evidence, and hence the strength of recommendations, is influenced by the quality of the systematic review as well as the included studies. Several tools are now available to assess the quality (validity) of systematic reviews, including AMSTAR, ROBIS and, recently, the AMSTAR 2 tool. We describe our experience of using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which has expanded from the original 11 to 16 items, and we compared it to the ROBIS tool.
Objectives:
To describe the experience of using both AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS for individual domains and overall judgement, concurrent validity and the time required to apply the tools.
Methods:
Three researchers (with different levels of experience) assessed 80 systematic reviews on telemedicine with the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. We assessed the validity of the two tools by comparing different domains addressing similar items and the time taken to complete each tool. Each researcher rated their experience with each tool.
Results:
The time taken to complete the AMSTAR 2 tool was relatively shorter when compared to the ROBIS tool. All researchers noted that the AMSTAR 2 tool appeared to be simpler to use, mainly due to the use of checkboxes with guidance. However, the ROBIS tool produced a more comprehensive risk of bias assessment. The agreement of individual domains from both tools will be presented.
Conclusions:
We noted that the AMSTAR 2 tool was a simpler tool to use compared to the ROBIS tool, which required more time to complete. Nevertheless, there were additional domains addressed by the ROBIS tool that make it a useful adjunct for researchers to consider to supplement their report and publication.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
None.
Systematic reviews are widely used by researchers and decision-makers to guide recommendations. The quality of evidence, and hence the strength of recommendations, is influenced by the quality of the systematic review as well as the included studies. Several tools are now available to assess the quality (validity) of systematic reviews, including AMSTAR, ROBIS and, recently, the AMSTAR 2 tool. We describe our experience of using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which has expanded from the original 11 to 16 items, and we compared it to the ROBIS tool.
Objectives:
To describe the experience of using both AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS for individual domains and overall judgement, concurrent validity and the time required to apply the tools.
Methods:
Three researchers (with different levels of experience) assessed 80 systematic reviews on telemedicine with the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. We assessed the validity of the two tools by comparing different domains addressing similar items and the time taken to complete each tool. Each researcher rated their experience with each tool.
Results:
The time taken to complete the AMSTAR 2 tool was relatively shorter when compared to the ROBIS tool. All researchers noted that the AMSTAR 2 tool appeared to be simpler to use, mainly due to the use of checkboxes with guidance. However, the ROBIS tool produced a more comprehensive risk of bias assessment. The agreement of individual domains from both tools will be presented.
Conclusions:
We noted that the AMSTAR 2 tool was a simpler tool to use compared to the ROBIS tool, which required more time to complete. Nevertheless, there were additional domains addressed by the ROBIS tool that make it a useful adjunct for researchers to consider to supplement their report and publication.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
None.