Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis$

Julia H. Littell, Jacqueline Corcoran, and Vijayan Pillai

Print publication date: 2008

Print ISBN-13: 9780195326543

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2009

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195326543.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: null; date: 25 February 2017

(p.142) Appendix A: AMSTAR (for assessment of multiple systematic reviews)

(p.142) Appendix A: AMSTAR (for assessment of multiple systematic reviews)

Source:
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis
Publisher:
Oxford University Press

1. Was an a priori design provided?

The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Can’t answer

□ Not applicable

2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?

There should be at least two independent data extractors, and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Can’t answer

□ Not applicable

3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?

At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MeSH terms must be stated and, where feasible, the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study and by reviewing the references in the studies found.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Can’t answer

□ Not applicable

4. Was the status of publication (i.e., gray literature) used as an inclusion criterion?

The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review) based on their publication status, language, etc.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Can’t answer

□ Not applicable

5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?

A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Can’t answer

□ Not applicable

6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?

In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions, and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed (e.g. age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, other diseases) should be reported.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Can’t answer

□ Not applicable

7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?

A priori methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author [s] chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies, alternative items will be relevant.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Can’t answer

□ Not applicable

8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?

The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and conclusions of the review and explicitly stated in the recommendations.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Can’t answer

□ Not applicable

9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?

For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e., χ 2 test for homogeneity, I 2). If heterogeneity exists, a random-effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e., Is it sensible to combine?).

□ Yes

□ No

□ Can’t answer

□ Not applicable

10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?

An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test).

□ Yes

□ No

□ Can’t answer

□ Not applicable

11. Was the conflict of interest stated?

Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.

□ Yes

□ No

□ Can’t answer

□ Not applicable

Source: Shea, Grimshaw, Wells, Boers, Andersson, Hamel, et al. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/supplementary/1471-228 (2007). Available at 88-7-10-S1.doc.