Cited by 1,755Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchReliability and Agreement in Measurement

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

Open access
Shea, Beverley J., Hamel, Candyce, Wells, George A., Bouter, Lex M., Kristjansson, Elizabeth, Grimshaw, Jeremy, Henry, David A., Boers, Maarten·2009·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective Our purpose was to measure the agreement, reliability, construct validity, and feasibility of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR).Study design and setting We randomly selected 30 systematic reviews from a database. Each was assessed by two reviewers using: (1) the enhanced quality assessment questionnaire (Overview of Quality Assessment Questionnaire [OQAQ]); (2) Sacks' instrument; and (3) our newly developed measurement tool (AMSTAR). We report on reliability (interobserver kappas of the 11 AMSTAR items), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of the sum scores, construct validity (ICCs of the sum scores of AMSTAR compared with those of other instruments), and completion times.Results The interrater agreement of the individual items of AMSTAR was substantial with a mean kappa of 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57, 0.83) (range: 0.38-1.0). Kappas recorded for the other instruments were 0.63 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.78) for enhanced OQAQ and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.29, 0.50) for the Sacks' instrument. The ICC of the total score for AMSTAR was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.92) compared with 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.96) for OQAQ and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.94) for the Sacks' instrument. AMSTAR proved easy to apply, each review taking about 15 minutes to complete.Conclusions AMSTAR has good agreement, reliability, construct validity, and feasibility. These findings need confirmation by a broader range of assessors and a more diverse range of reviews.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Appel LJ, Miller ER, Seidler AJ, Whelton PK. Does supplementation of diet with ''fish oil'' reduce blood pressure. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:1429e38.
  2. Hopfenmuller W. Nackweis der therapeutischen Wirksamkeit eines Ginkgo biloba-Spezial extrakes: Meta-Analyse von 11 klinischen Studien bei Patienten mit Hirnleistungsstorungen im Alter. Arzneimittel-Forschung 1994;44:1005e13.
  3. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between measurements. Biochim Clin 1987;11:399e404.
  4. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D. Stroup D for the QUOROM group. Improving the reporting quality of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;354:1896e900.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shea, B. J., Hamel, C., Wells, G. A., Bouter, L. M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., Henry, D. A., & Boers, M.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Institute of Population and Public Health (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (CA)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Shea, Beverley J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-10
Volume
62
Issue
10
Pages
1013-1020
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073644162
Cited by
1,755
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 148 · 2020: 140 · 2019: 158 · 2018: 168 · 2017: 216 · 2016: 149 · 2015: 121 · 2014: 108 · 2013: 83 · 2012: 49
FWCI
2.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
AMSTAR, methodological quality assessment, systematic reviews, inter-rater reliability, construct validity
MeSH terms
Feasibility Studies, Humans, Quality Control, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Evidence-Based Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review