Cited by 130Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchReliability and Agreement in Measurement

A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2

Open access
Perry, R., Whitmarsh, A., Leach, V., Davies, P.·2021·Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: AMSTAR-2 is a 16-item assessment tool to check the quality of a systematic review and establish whether the most important elements are reported. ROBIS is another assessment tool which was designed to evaluate the level of bias present within a systematic review. Our objective was to compare, contrast and establish both inter-rater reliability and usability of both tools as part of two overviews of systematic reviews. Strictly speaking, one tool assesses methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) and the other assesses risk of bias (ROBIS), but there is considerable overlap between the tools in terms of the signalling questions. METHODS: for weighted analysis). RESULTS: Thirty-one systematic reviews were included. For AMSTAR-2, the median agreement for all questions was 0.61. Eight of the 16 AMSTAR-2 questions had substantial agreement or higher (> 0.61). For ROBIS, the median agreement for all questions was also 0.61. Eleven of the 24 ROBIS questions had substantial agreement or higher. CONCLUSION: ROBIS is an effective tool for assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews and AMSTAR-2 is an effective tool at assessing quality. The median agreement between raters for both tools was identical (0.61). Reviews that included a meta-analysis were easier to rate with ROBIS; however, further developmental work could improve its use in reviews without a formal synthesis. AMSTAR-2 was more straightforward to use; however, more response options would be beneficial.

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 · 10.1186/s13643-021-01819-x

Cites

48 of 48 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

1 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [17]Terhorst L Schneider M Complementary and alternative medicine in the treatment of pain in fibromyalgia: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials 2012 Portland From International Research Congress on Integrative Medicine and Health 21875523

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perry, R., Whitmarsh, A., Leach, V., & Davies, P.
Affiliations
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (GB)
  • University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Perry, R.
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Published
2021-10-25
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
273-273
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3173323133
Cited by
130
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 13 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration West
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 2, ROBIS, overviews of systematic reviews, risk of bias, methodological quality assessment, inter-rater reliability, reporting quality, meta-analysis
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Bias

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