TY  - JOUR
A1  - Lorenz, Robert C.
A1  - Matthias, Katja
A1  - Pieper, Dawid
A1  - Wegewitz, Uta Elke
A1  - Morche, Johannes
A1  - Nocon, Marc
A1  - Rissling, Olesja
A1  - Schirm, Jaqueline
A1  - Jacobs, Anja
T1  - A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool
JF  - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
N2  - 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.
KW  - AMSTAR 2
KW  - AMSTAR
KW  - ROBIS
KW  - Methodological quality
KW  - Risk of bias
KW  - Systematic review
Y1  - 2019
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.028
SN  - 0895-4356
SN  - 1878-5921
VL  - 114
SP  - 133
EP  - 140
PB  - Elsevier
CY  - New York
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Matthias, Katja
A1  - Rissling, Olesja
A1  - Pieper, Dawid Aleksander
A1  - Morche, Johannes
A1  - Nocon, Marc
A1  - Jacobs, Anja
A1  - Wegewitz, Uta Elke
A1  - Schirm, Jaqueline
A1  - Lorenz, Robert C.
T1  - The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2
BT  - a cross-sectional study
JF  - Heliyon
N2  - 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.
KW  - public health
KW  - epidemiology
KW  - psychiatry
KW  - depression
KW  - evidence-based
KW  - medicine
KW  - AMSTAR 2
KW  - methodological quality
KW  - risk of bias
KW  - systematic
KW  - review
KW  - major depression
Y1  - 2020
U6  - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04776
SN  - 2405-8440
VL  - 6
IS  - 9
PB  - Elsevier
CY  - London [u.a.]
ER  -