Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches

ResearchSpace Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Popovich, I en
dc.contributor.author Windsor, B en
dc.contributor.author Jordan-Cole, Vanessa en
dc.contributor.author Showell, Marian en
dc.contributor.author Shea, B en
dc.contributor.author Farquhar, Cynthia en
dc.coverage.spatial Auckland, New Zealand en
dc.date.accessioned 2018-10-23T03:12:52Z en
dc.date.issued 2012 en
dc.identifier.citation PLoS ONE 7(12):1-9 Article number e50403 28 Dec 2012 en
dc.identifier.issn 1932-6203 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2292/43281 en
dc.description.abstract Background:Systematic reviews are used widely to guide health care decisions. Several tools have been created to assess systematic review quality. The AMSTAR tool applies a yes/no score to eleven relevant domains of review methodology. This tool has been reworked so that each domain is scored based on a four point scale, producing r-AMSTAR. Objectives:To compare the AMSTAR and r-AMSTAR tools in the assessment of systematic reviews in the field of subfertility. Methods:All published systematic reviews on assisted reproductive technology, with the latest search for studies taking place from 2007-2011, were considered. Reviews that contained no included studies or considered diagnostic outcomes were excluded. Thirty of each Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were randomly selected from a search of relevant databases. Both tools were then applied to all sixty reviews. The results were converted to percentage scores and all reviews graded and ranked based on this. Results:Table 1 shows the breakdown of grades. AMSTAR produced a much wider variation in percentage scores and achieved higher inter-rater reliability than r-AMSTAR according to kappa statistics. The average rating for Cochrane reviews was consistent between the two tools but inconsistent for non-Cochrane reviews (63.9% R-AMSTAR vs. 38.5% AMSTAR). In comparing the rankings generated between the two tools Cochrane reviews changed an average of 4.2 places, compared to 2.9 for non-Cochrane. Conclusions:r-AMSTAR provided greater guidance in the assessment of domains and produced quantitative and informative results. However, there were many problems with the construction of its criteria and AMSTAR was much easier to apply consistently. We recommend that AMSTAR incorporates the findings of this study and produces a revised tool that generates a more informative assessment of each domain, and gives greater guidance in doing so, while taking care to avoid the issues found with r-AMSTAR. en
dc.relation.ispartofseries PLoS ONE en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. en
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm en
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ en
dc.title Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0050403 en
pubs.issue 12 en
pubs.begin-page e50403 en
pubs.volume 7 en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The authors en
dc.identifier.pmid 23300526 en
pubs.end-page e50403 en
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/OpenAccess en
pubs.elements-id 365627 en
pubs.org-id Medical and Health Sciences en
pubs.org-id School of Medicine en
pubs.org-id Obstetrics and Gynaecology en
dc.identifier.eissn 1932-6203 en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2012-11-29 en
pubs.dimensions-id 23300526 en


Files in this item

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

Statistics