@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}
}