Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.
Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12874-018-0493-y
复制
发表时间：
2018-05-08
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Puljak L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dosenovic S;Jelicic Kadic A;Vucic K;Markovina N;Pieper D;Puljak L
神经病理性疼痛(NeuP)领域的系统评价(SRS)对决策越来越重要。然而，SRS中的方法论缺陷会降低结论的有效性。因此，批判性地评估NeuP SRS的方法学质量是很重要的。此外，还不清楚应该使用哪种评估工具。我们研究了NeuP领域发表的SRS的方法学质量，并对两种评估工具进行了比较。我们系统地搜索了5个电子数据库，以确定截至2015年3月的NeuP干预随机对照试验的SR。两名独立评价者使用多重系统评价评估(AMSTAR)和修订的AMSTAR(R-AMSTAR)工具对研究的方法学质量进行了评估。分数被转换成百分位数，并被分成4个等级，以便在两个检查表之间进行比较。评分员间信度评价采用Gwet‘s AC1系数。纳入的97个SRs具有广泛的方法学质量评分(AMSTAR中位数(IQR)：6(5-8)vs.R-AMSTAR中位数(IQR)：30(26-35))。两名评价者之间的总体一致性得分：AMSTAR为0.62(95%可信区间0.39-0.86)，R-AMSTAR为0.62(95%可信区间0.53-0.70)。31个Cochrane系统评价(CSR)的排名始终高于66个非Cochrane系统评价(NCSR)。对个别领域的分析表明，在对两份清单进行全面文献检索(项目3)时，符合情况最好。遵从性最差的领域的结果不同：利益冲突(第11项)是AMSTAR上报道最差的项目，而R-AMSTAR上的发表偏见评估(第10项)是最差的。所有SRs的AMSTAR总分和R-AMSTAR得分之间以及CSR和NCSR的AMSTAR总分之间存在高度正相关。NeuP领域的SRs分析的方法学质量并不理想，CSRS的质量高于NCSSR。AMSTAR和R-AMSTAR工具都给出了类似的质量评级。我们的结果指出了现有SRS关于管理NeuP干预的方法的缺陷，并呼吁通过更好地遵守AMSTAR或R-AMSTAR分析的质量检查表来进一步改进。本文的在线版本(10.1186/s12874-0180493-y)包含向授权用户提供的补充材料。
Systematic reviews (SRs) in the field of neuropathic pain (NeuP) are increasingly important for decision-making. However, methodological flaws in SRs can reduce the validity of conclusions. Hence, it is important to assess the methodological quality of NeuP SRs critically. Additionally, it remains unclear which assessment tool should be used. We studied the methodological quality of SRs published in the field of NeuP and compared two assessment tools. We systematically searched 5 electronic databases to identify SRs of randomized controlled trials of interventions for NeuP available up to March 2015. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR) tools. The scores were converted to percentiles and ranked into 4 grades to allow comparison between the two checklists. Gwet’s AC1 coefficient was used for interrater reliability assessment. The 97 included SRs had a wide range of methodological quality scores (AMSTAR median (IQR): 6 (5–8) vs. R-AMSTAR median (IQR): 30 (26–35)). The overall agreement score between the 2 raters was 0.62 (95% CI 0.39–0.86) for AMSTAR and 0.62 (95% CI 0.53–0.70) for R-AMSTAR. The 31 Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) were consistently ranked higher than the 66 non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCSRs). The analysis of individual domains showed the best compliance in a comprehensive literature search (item 3) on both checklists. The results for the domain that was the least compliant differed: conflict of interest (item 11) was the item most poorly reported on AMSTAR vs. publication bias assessment (item 10) on R-AMSTAR. A high positive correlation between the total AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR scores for all SRs, as well as for CSRs and NCSRs, was observed. The methodological quality of analyzed SRs in the field of NeuP was not optimal, and CSRs had a higher quality than NCSRs. Both AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools produced comparable quality ratings. Our results point out to weaknesses in the methodology of existing SRs on interventions for the management NeuP and call for future improvement by better adherence to analyzed quality checklists, either AMSTAR or R-AMSTAR. The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0493-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
15.8
作者：
Moher D;Tetzlaff J;Tricco AC;Sampson M;Altman DG
通讯作者：
Altman DG
影响因子：
15.8
作者：
Page MJ;Shamseer L;Altman DG;Tetzlaff J;Sampson M;Tricco AC;Catalá-López F;Li L;Reid EK;Sarkis-Onofre R;Moher D
通讯作者：
Moher D
DOI：
10.2174/1874210601004020084
发表时间：
2010-07-16
期刊：
The open dentistry journal
影响因子：
--
作者：
Kung J;Chiappelli F;Cajulis OO;Avezova R;Kossan G;Chew L;Maida CA
通讯作者：
Maida CA
影响因子：
5.1
作者：
Attal, N.;Cruccu, G.;Nurmikko, T.
通讯作者：
Nurmikko, T.
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Fleming, Padhraig S.;Seehra, Jadbinder;Pandis, Nikolaos
通讯作者：
Pandis, Nikolaos