AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

@article{Shea2009AMSTARIA,
  title={AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.},
  author={Beverley J. Shea and Candyce Hamel and George A Wells and Lex M. Bouter and Elizabeth A. Kristjansson and Jeremy M. Grimshaw and David A Henry and Maarten Boers},
  journal={Journal of clinical epidemiology},
  year={2009},
  volume={62 10},
  pages={
          1013-20
        }
}

Reliability and External Validity of AMSTAR in Assessing Quality of TCM Systematic Reviews

Although there is room for improvement on few items, the new tool is reliable, valid, and easy to use for methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews on TCM.

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

Measuring test-retest reliability (TRR) of AMSTAR provides moderate to perfect agreement – a contribution to the discussion of the importance of TRR in relation to the psychometric properties of assessment tools

The high variation between the first and second AMSTAR ratings suggests that consideration of the TRR is important when evaluating the psychometric properties of AMSTAR, but more evidence is needed to investigate this neglected issue of measurement properties.

Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement

It is proposed that AMSTAR should modify a number of individual items and their instructions and responses to make them more congruent with an assessment of the methodologic quality of systematic reviews.

Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study

The interrater reliability (IRR), usability, and applicability of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), AMSTAR 2, and Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) for SRs in the fields of biomedicine and public health is investigated.

A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2

ROBIS is an effective tool for assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews and AMSTAR-2 is aneffective tool at assessing quality.

[Construction of a scale to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews].

From the processes of adaptation and validation performed, the methodology in its final version consisted of 14 items that taken together indicate the methodological quality of systematic reviews from different areas of knowledge.
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 88 REFERENCES

Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

A measurement tool for the 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was developed that consists of 11 items and has good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

Validation of an index of the quality of review articles.

Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials

The concept of study quality and the methods used to assess quality are discussed and the methodology for both the assessment of quality and its incorporation into systematic reviews and meta-analysis is discussed.

Diversity of decision-making models and the measurement of interrater agreement.

In this article, diagnostic decision making is viewed as a special case of signal detection theory, where each diagnostic process is characterized by a function that relates the probability of a case receiving a positive diagnosis to the severity or salience of symptoms.

Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

It is concluded that an urgent need exists for improved methods in literature searching, quality evaluation of trials, and synthesizing of the results.

Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study

Multiple systematic reviews on the same clinical topic varied in quality of reporting and recommendations, mainly because of greater emphasis of the Oxman and Guyatt scores on the appraisal of bias in selection and validity assessment.

Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Individual quality measures are not reliably associated with the strength of treatment effect across studies and medical areas, and findings of associations with treatment effect cannot be generalized to all clinical areas or meta-analyses.

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence

The literature on the synthesis and presentation of research evidence was reviewed, focusing on four key questions, and the conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments.
...