Suppr超能文献

系统评价发现 AMSTAR 具有良好的测量特性,但 R(修订)-AMSTAR 则不然。

Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties.

机构信息

Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Department for Evidence-based health services research, Ostmerheimer Str. 200 (building 38), 51109 Cologne, Witten/Herdecke University, Germany.

Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Department for Health Information, Mediapark 8 (KölnTurm), 50670 Cologne, Germany.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 May;68(5):574-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.009. Epub 2014 Dec 30.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To summarize all available evidence on measurement properties in terms of reliability, validity, and feasibility of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, including R(evised)-AMSTAR.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psycinfo, and CINAHL were searched for studies containing information on measurement properties of the tools in October 2013. We extracted data on study characteristics and measurement properties. These data were analyzed following measurement criteria.

RESULTS

We included 13 studies, four of them were labeled as validation studies. Nine articles dealt with AMSTAR, two articles dealt with R-AMSTAR, and one article dealt with both instruments. In terms of interrater reliability, most items showed a substantial agreement (>0.6). The median intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the overall score of AMSTAR was 0.83 (range 0.60-0.98), indicating a high agreement. In terms of validity, ICCs were very high with all but one ICC lower than 0.8 when the AMSTAR score was compared with scores from other tools. Scoring AMSTAR takes between 10 and 20 minutes.

CONCLUSION

AMSTAR seems to be reliable and valid. Further investigations for systematic reviews of other study designs than randomized controlled trials are needed. R-AMSTAR should be further investigated as evidence for its use is limited and its measurement properties have not been studied sufficiently. In general, test-retest reliability should be investigated in future studies.

摘要

目的

总结评估多项系统评价(AMSTAR)工具及其修订版(R-AMSTAR)的可靠性、有效性和可行性的所有现有证据,包括评估多项系统评价(AMSTAR)工具及其修订版(R-AMSTAR)的可靠性、有效性和可行性。

研究设计和设置

2013 年 10 月,在 MEDLINE、EMBASE、Psycinfo 和 CINAHL 中搜索包含工具测量特性信息的研究。我们提取了关于研究特征和测量特性的数据。根据测量标准分析这些数据。

结果

我们纳入了 13 项研究,其中 4 项为验证研究。9 篇文章涉及 AMSTAR,2 篇文章涉及 R-AMSTAR,1 篇文章涉及两种工具。在评分者间信度方面,大多数项目显示出实质性的一致性(>0.6)。AMSTAR 总分的中位数组内相关系数(ICC)为 0.83(范围 0.60-0.98),表明一致性较高。在有效性方面,除了一项与其他工具的评分比较时 ICC 略低于 0.8 外,ICC 均非常高。评估 AMSTAR 需要 10 到 20 分钟。

结论

AMSTAR 似乎具有可靠性和有效性。需要对其他研究设计(而非随机对照试验)的系统评价进行进一步研究。需要进一步研究 R-AMSTAR,因为其使用的证据有限,其测量特性尚未得到充分研究。一般来说,未来的研究应调查重测信度。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验