How to use AMSTAR 2 - an example from physical therapy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 вер 2024
- How to use the AMSTAR-2 tool. One example of a paper by de Labra et al 2015. BMC Geriatrics (2015) 15:154. DOI 10.1186/s12877-015-0155-4
AMSTAR 2 tool, checklist and guidance document, and more information can be found here:
amstar.ca/inde...
great. thanks a lot!
you sir, are a life saver! this was very comprehensive. thank you!
Thanx!
Enjoyed the video, thank you!
Hello, in item 2 when it says "justification of any deviation from protocol", if they don't say anything about deviations from protocol in the review, what i should do? I should check the box or not? And I have the same question also for item 4, when it says "Justified publication restrictions", if the review says that there are no language restrictions, or no restrictions at all, or just doesn't adresses the problem (it doesn't says anything about restrictions), what should I do? Check the box or not? Thank you and thank you for this video!
Hello, sorry but in item 4, you give a partial yes, but when it asks for "justified restriction (e.g. language)", it does not really justify it, it just say that the search was limited to english, i mean, if we want to be precise you should had put "no" as a final answer, am i right? because i am using amstar 2 right now and i am a little bit confused about this. Anyway thank you for the video!
Can you explain what grey literature is? If you have any example of a research paper that includes this, can you make a video to show us?
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 ❤️🙏
Hi sir. Can you do a video using AMSTAR 2007 checklist? And which version of AMSTAR do you think is good for beginner researchers or undergrads?
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
Do you think AMSTAR 2 is a bit harsh with the items and the criteria? Seems impossible to get a High rating
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 🙂
Is AMSTAR tool is used to asses for intervention studies and quantitative studies?
Thank you for your question. Amstar is used for quality assessment of Systematic Reviews/Meta-syntesis of intervention studies (RCT) and yes only quantitative.
On item 10 you type Y (for YES) instead N (for NO)
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!