@article{LorenzMatthiasPieperetal.2019,
  author    = {Lorenz, Robert C. and Matthias, Katja and Pieper, Dawid and Wegewitz, Uta Elke and Morche, Johannes and Nocon, Marc and Rissling, Olesja and Schirm, Jaqueline and Jacobs, Anja},
  title     = {A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool},
  series = {Journal of Clinical Epidemiology},
  volume    = {114},
  journal   = {Journal of Clinical Epidemiology},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0895-4356},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.028},
  pages     = {133 -- 140},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine the interrater reliability (IRR) of assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 for reviews of pharmacological or psychological interventions for the treatment of major depression, to compare it to that of AMSTAR and risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS), and to assess the convergent validity between the appraisal tools. Results: The median kappa values as a measure of IRR indicated a moderate agreement for AMSTAR 2 (median = 0.51), a substantial agreement for AMSTAR (median = 0.62), and a fair agreement for ROBIS (median = 0.27). Validity results showed a positive association for AMSTAR and AMSTAR 2 (r = 0.91) as well as ROBIS and AMSTAR 2 (r = 0.84). For the overall rating, AMSTAR 2 showed a high concordance with ROBIS and a lower concordance with AMSTAR. Conclusion: The IRR of AMSTAR 2 was found to be slightly lower than the IRR of AMSTAR and higher than the IRR of ROBIS. Validity measurements indicate that AMSTAR 2 is closely related to both ROBIS and AMSTAR. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MatthiasRisslingPieperetal.2020,
  author    = {Matthias, Katja and Rissling, Olesja and Pieper, Dawid Aleksander and Morche, Johannes and Nocon, Marc and Jacobs, Anja and Wegewitz, Uta Elke and Schirm, Jaqueline and Lorenz, Robert C.},
  title     = {The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2},
  series = {Heliyon},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Heliyon},
  number    = {9},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {London [u.a.]},
  issn      = {2405-8440},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04776},
  pages     = {7},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background: Several standards have been developed to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). One widely used tool is the AMSTAR. A recent update -AMSTAR 2 -is a 16 item evaluation tool that enables a detailed assessment of SR that include randomised (RCT) or non-randomised studies (NRS) of healthcare interventions. Methods: A cross-sectional study of SR on pharmacological or psychological interventions in major depression in adults was conducted. SR published during 2012-2017 were sampled from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of SR. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Potential predictive factors associated with quality were examined. Results: In rating overall confidence in the results of 60 SR four reviews were rated "high", two were "moderate", one was "low" and 53 were "critically low". The mean AMSTAR 2 percentage score was 45.3\% (standard deviation 22.6\%) in a wide range from 7.1\% to 93.8\%. Predictors of higher quality were: type of review (higher quality in Cochrane Reviews), SR including only randomized trials and higher journal impact factor. Limitations: AMSTAR 2 is not intended to be used for the generation of a percentage score. Conclusions: According to AMSTAR 2 the overall methodological quality of SR on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement. Although there is a high need for summarized information in the field of mental health, this work demonstrates the need to critically assess SR before using their findings. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines for SR is needed.},
  language  = {en}
}