Відео

Thank you for your question and sorry for a late answer. I think the concept of grey literature is very well explained by James McKenzie from the Simon Frazer University (www.lib.sfu.ca/help/research-assistance/format-type/grey-literature). In short, grey literature is literature that you could find in other sources than the traditional publishing and distribution channels, for example, reports, working papers, newsletters, government documents, etc. We must keep in mind that systematic reviews (SRs) that are evaluated on RoB by AMSTER-2 should only include RCTs or CTs. That means that the chance that an SR has included papers that are published in non-traditional sources is relatively low since it is unlikely that an author of a very expensive RCT publish their results in a report. However, sometimes important RCTs are published in other databases than the ones that were included. The authors of an SR cannot include all existing databases but have to make a selection of say 3-4 databases. But if they also look in newspapers, governmental reports, or newsletters, the author of this SR might find additional papers of importance that are published in scientific journals. A search in Google Scholar, for example, could give the authors of an SR the possibility to find RCTs that are published in databases that they haven't included in their ordinary search. So that's why, in AMSTAR-2, we should check for this in point 4.

@@MrWim65 Thank you very much, that is very clear now ❤️🙏

Thank you for your comment. I think the 2007 checklist should be replaced with the AMSTAR-2, and I believe that we should not go backwards. There is a need for basic knowledge in science to do an AMSTAR rating, so sometimes I do a pedagogic exercise with undergraduates on AMSTAR, but I see that they struggle a lot with it. Mostly it is because their skills to read an RCT (or scientific paper in general) is limited. So yes I think you should be on an advanced or PhD level to be able to perform an AMSTAR rating. In my course on systematic reviews I have very new PhD students and they can do it, so I think the explanation paper (www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4008) is very clear. Check it out. Being a clinician, the idea is that you are a research consumer and not a producer, so the skill of doing a AMSTAR rating is not for everybody. I think that as a clinician it is important to be able to read systematic reviews and to understand the concept of evidence. For that last part, the AMSTAR ratings are important. Why can one systematic review suddenly change health care routines and why is it in most cases so difficult to change these routines. It all depends on the level of evidence, which is direct related to the quality of the included studies. I think that clinicians need this basic understanding to be able to make clinical decisions on what treatment/rehabilitation you should chose and what treatment not to based used. But remember, this part is only the scientific part. In evidence-based medicine it is important to put this knowledge in relation to your clinical experience, resources and patient-preferences as well. Not everybody should produce research, and doing an AMSTAR is the job of a research, producing science. Sorry for this long explanation, but I wish you all the best in your carrier. /Wim

Yes I did!! That was wrong. Good observation by you - it is difficult to change this now, but your comment helps future students not to make the same mistake. Thanks for your comment!

@@MrWim65 u r wlcm! Thank u for this precious content!

Thank you for your question. Amstar is used for quality assessment of Systematic Reviews/Meta-syntesis of intervention studies (RCT) and yes only quantitative.

Yes, the only way is that you as an author has to read the AMSTAR criteria before you write a systematic review - There are studies with all domains green! It is possible 🙂

Thanx!