Home Articoli
AMSTAR 2: strumento per la valutazione critica di revisioni sistematiche di trial randomizzati e/o di studi non randomizzati sull’efficacia degli interventi sanitari

Guidelines & Standards

AMSTAR 2: strumento per la valutazione critica di revisioni sistematiche di trial randomizzati e/o di studi non randomizzati sull’efficacia degli interventi sanitari
Beverley J Shea, Barnaby C Reeves, George Wells, Micere Thuku, Candyce Hamel, Julian Moran, David Moher, Peter Tugwell, Vivian Welch, Elizabeth Kristjansson, David A Henry

Evidence 2020;12(2): e1000206 doi: 10.4470/E1000206

Pubblicato: 18 febbraio 2020

Copyright: © 2017 Shea et al. Questo è un articolo open-access, distribuito con licenza Creative Commons Attribution, che ne consente l’utilizzo, la distribuzione e la riproduzione su qualsiasi supporto esclusivamente per fini non commerciali, a condizione di riportare sempre autore e citazione originale.

1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000326.
2. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:597-9.
3. Moher D. Alessandro Liberati, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, and the PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for (SR) and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;6:264-9.
4. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12.
5. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook. Ultimo accesso: 18 febbraio 2020.
6. Dechartres A, Charles P, Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:136-44.
7. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.
8. Wong WC, Cheung CS, Hart GJ. Development of a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews of observational studies (QATSO) of HIV prevalence in men having sex with men and associated risk behaviours. Emerg Themes Epidemiol 2008;5:23.
9. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998;51:1235-41.
10. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:377-84.
11. Murray J, Farrington DP, Eisner MP. Drawing conclusions about causes from systematic reviews of risk factors: The Cambridge Quality Checklists. J Exp Criminol 2009;5:1-23.
12. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 2012;21:651-7.
13. Bérard A, Andreu N, Tétrault J, Niyonsenga T, Myhal D. Reliability of Chalmers’ scale to assess quality in metaanalyses on pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis. Ann Epidemiol 2000;10:498-503.
14. Thompson S, Ekelund U, Jebb S, et al. A proposed method of bias adjustment for meta-analyses of published observational studies. Int J Epidemiol 2011;40:765-77.
15. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in metanalysis. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. Wiley & Sons, 2008;285-312.
16. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987;316:450-5.
17. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:1271-8.
18. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 1994;272:1367-71.
19. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Methodology Checklist 1: Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Disponibile a: https://www.sign.ac.uk/media/1721/srchecklist.doc. Ultimo accesso: 18 febbraio 2020.
20. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015;13:132-40.
21. Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS group. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:225-34.
22. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
23. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1013-20.
24. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2007;2:e1350.
25. Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, et al. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dent J 2010;4:84-91.
26. Pieper D, Buechter RB, Li L, Prediger B, Eikermann M. Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:574-83.
27. Faggion CMJr. Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, imitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol 2015;15:63.
28. Teich ST, Heima M, Lang L. Dental Students’ Use of AMSTAR to Critically Appraise Systematic Reviews. J Dent Educ 2015;79:1031-9.
29. Burda BU, Holmer HK, Norris SL. Limitations of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (amstar) and suggestions for improvement. Syst Rev 2016;5:58.
30. Wegewitz U, Weikert B, Fishta A, Jacobs A, Pieper D. Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better?BMC Med Res Methodol 2016;16:111.
31. Dahm P. Raising the bar for systematic reviews with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). BJU Int 2017;119:193.
32. Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ 1998;316:140-4.
33. Renehan AG, Tyson M, Egger M, Heller RF, Zwahlen M. Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Lancet 2008;371:569-78.
34. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a crosssectional study. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1002028.
35. Shapiro S. Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140:771-8.
36. Fleiss JL, Gross AJ. Meta-analysis in epidemiology, with special reference to studies of the association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: a critique. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:127-39.
37. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM. Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:889-97.
38. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ 2010;340:c221.
39. Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002;21:2313-24.
40. Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10(Suppl 1):21-34.
41. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19-32.
42. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Cochrane Bias Methods Group. Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
43. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919.
44. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (2017). Appraising the risk of bias in randomized trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University. (Updated 1 September, 2017). Disponibile a: www.nccmt.ca/resources/search/280. Ultimo accesso: 18 febbraio 2020.
45. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA 2008;299:1833-5.
46. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167-70.
47. Yaphe J, Edman R, Knishkowy B, Herman J. The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Fam Pract 2001;18:565-8.
48. Bilandzic A, Fitzpatrick T, Rosella L, Henry D. Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Non-Randomized Studies of Adverse Cardiovascular Effects of Thiazolidinediones and Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors: Application of a New Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1001987.
49. Nüesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, et al. Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2010;341:c3515.
50. Bero L, El-Hachem P, Abou-Haidar H, Neumann I, Schünemann HJ, Guyatt GH. What is in a name? Nonfinancial influences on the outcomes of systematic reviews and guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:1239-41.
51. Committee on Publication Ethics. Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. Disponibile a: https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf. Ultimo accesso: 18 febbraio 2020.
52. Salas M, Hofman A, Stricker BH. Confounding by indication: an example of variation in the use of epidemiologic terminology. Am J Epidemiol 1999;149:981-3.
53. Ray WA. Evaluating medication effects outside of clinical trials: new-user designs. Am J Epidemiol 2003;158:915-20.
54. Suissa S. Immortal time bias in pharmaco-epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol 2008;167:492-9.
55. Greenland S, O’Rourke K. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics 2001;2:463-71.
56. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282:1054-60.
57. Shea, BJ Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews: The Development of AMSTAR, PhD, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 2008: page 70. Disponibile a: https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/assessing-the-methodological-quality-of-systematic-reviews-the-de. Ultimo accesso: 18 febbraio 2020.
58. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:666-76.
59. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of observational studies in metaanalyses. Disponibile a: www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Ultimo accesso: 18 febbraio 2020.
60. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network SIGN 50: Methodology Checklist 3: Cohort Studies. Disponibile a: https://www.sign.ac.uk/media/1712/checklist_for_cohort_studies.rtf. Ultimo accesso: 18 febbraio 2020.
61. McGettigan P, Henry D. Cardiovascular risk with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: systematic review of population-based controlled observational studies. PLoS Med 2011;8:e1001098.
62. Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS group. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:225-34.