Gómez-García Francisco, Ruano Juan, Gay-Mimbrera Jesus, Aguilar-Luque Macarena, Sanz-Cabanillas Juan Luis, Alcalde-Mellado Patricia, Maestre-López Beatriz, Carmona-Fernández Pedro Jesús, González-Padilla Marcelino, García-Nieto Antonio Vélez, Isla-Tejera Beatriz
Department of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, 14004 Córdoba, Spain; IMIBIC, Reina Sofía University Hospital, University of Cordoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain.
Department of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University Hospital, 14004 Córdoba, Spain; IMIBIC, Reina Sofía University Hospital, University of Cordoba, 14004 Córdoba, Spain.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Dec;92:79-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.015. Epub 2017 Sep 9.
No gold standard exists to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs). Although Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is widely accepted for analyzing quality, the ROBIS instrument has recently been developed. This study aimed to compare the capacity of both instruments to capture the quality of SRs concerning psoriasis interventions.
Systematic literature searches were undertaken on relevant databases. For each review, methodological quality and bias risk were evaluated using the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools. Descriptive and principal component analyses were conducted to describe similarities and discrepancies between both assessment tools.
We classified 139 intervention SRs as displaying high/moderate/low methodological quality and as high/low risk of bias. A high risk of bias was detected for most SRs classified as displaying high or moderate methodological quality by AMSTAR. When comparing ROBIS result profiles, responses to domain 4 signaling questions showed the greatest differences between bias risk assessments, whereas domain 2 items showed the least.
When considering SRs published about psoriasis, methodological quality remains suboptimal, and the risk of bias is elevated, even for SRs exhibiting high methodological quality. Furthermore, the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools may be considered as complementary when conducting quality assessment of SRs.
不存在评估系统评价（SRs）方法学质量的金标准。尽管评估系统评价方法学质量（AMSTAR）在分析质量方面被广泛接受，但最近开发了ROBIS工具。本研究旨在比较这两种工具捕捉银屑病干预相关SRs质量的能力。
在相关数据库中进行系统文献检索。对于每篇综述，使用AMSTAR和ROBIS工具评估方法学质量和偏倚风险。进行描述性和主成分分析以描述两种评估工具之间的异同。
我们将139篇干预性SRs分类为具有高/中/低方法学质量以及高/低偏倚风险。对于大多数被AMSTAR分类为具有高或中等方法学质量的SRs，检测到高偏倚风险。比较ROBIS结果概况时，对第4领域信号问题的回答在偏倚风险评估之间显示出最大差异，而第2领域项目显示的差异最小。
在考虑已发表的关于银屑病的SRs时，即使对于具有高方法学质量的SRs，方法学质量仍不理想，且偏倚风险较高。此外，在对SRs进行质量评估时，AMSTAR和ROBIS工具可被视为互补。
