Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption.
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 04 2022
10 04 2022
Historique:
received:
02
08
2021
accepted:
31
03
2022
entrez:
11
4
2022
pubmed:
12
4
2022
medline:
13
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In 2007, AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs), was published, and it has since become one of the most widely used instruments for SR appraisal. In September 2017, AMSTAR 2 was published as an updated version of the tool. This mixed-methods study aimed to analyze the extent of the AMSTAR 2 uptake and explore potential barriers to its uptake. We analyzed the frequency of AMSTAR or AMSTAR 2 use in articles published in 2018, 2019 and 2020. We surveyed authors who have used AMSTAR but not AMSTAR 2 in the analyzed time frame to identify their reasons and barriers. The inclusion criterion for those authors was that the month of manuscript submission was after September 2017, i.e. after AMSTAR 2 was published. We included 871 studies. The majority (N = 451; 52%) used AMSTAR 2, while 44% (N = 382) used AMSTAR, 4% (N = 31) used R-AMSTAR and others used a combination of tools. In 2018, 81% of the analyzed studies used AMSTAR, while 16% used AMSTAR 2. In 2019, 52% used AMSTAR, while 44% used AMSTAR 2. Among articles published in 2020, 28% used AMSTAR, while AMSTAR 2 was used by 69%. An author survey indicated that the authors did not use AMSTAR 2 mostly because they were not aware of it, their protocol was already established, or data collection completed at the time when the new tool was published. Barriers towards AMSTAR 2 use were lack of quantitative assessment, insufficient awareness, length, difficulties with a specific item. In articles published in 2018-2020, that were submitted to a journal after AMSTAR 2 tool was published, almost half of the authors (44%) still used AMSTAR, the old version of the tool. However, the use of AMSTAR has been declining in each subsequent year. Our survey indicated that editors and peer-reviewers did not ask the authors to use the new version of the tool. Few barriers towards using AMSTAR 2 were identified, and thus it is anticipated that the use of the old version of AMSTAR will continue to decline.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In 2007, AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs), was published, and it has since become one of the most widely used instruments for SR appraisal. In September 2017, AMSTAR 2 was published as an updated version of the tool. This mixed-methods study aimed to analyze the extent of the AMSTAR 2 uptake and explore potential barriers to its uptake.
METHODS
We analyzed the frequency of AMSTAR or AMSTAR 2 use in articles published in 2018, 2019 and 2020. We surveyed authors who have used AMSTAR but not AMSTAR 2 in the analyzed time frame to identify their reasons and barriers. The inclusion criterion for those authors was that the month of manuscript submission was after September 2017, i.e. after AMSTAR 2 was published.
RESULTS
We included 871 studies. The majority (N = 451; 52%) used AMSTAR 2, while 44% (N = 382) used AMSTAR, 4% (N = 31) used R-AMSTAR and others used a combination of tools. In 2018, 81% of the analyzed studies used AMSTAR, while 16% used AMSTAR 2. In 2019, 52% used AMSTAR, while 44% used AMSTAR 2. Among articles published in 2020, 28% used AMSTAR, while AMSTAR 2 was used by 69%. An author survey indicated that the authors did not use AMSTAR 2 mostly because they were not aware of it, their protocol was already established, or data collection completed at the time when the new tool was published. Barriers towards AMSTAR 2 use were lack of quantitative assessment, insufficient awareness, length, difficulties with a specific item.
CONCLUSION
In articles published in 2018-2020, that were submitted to a journal after AMSTAR 2 tool was published, almost half of the authors (44%) still used AMSTAR, the old version of the tool. However, the use of AMSTAR has been declining in each subsequent year. Our survey indicated that editors and peer-reviewers did not ask the authors to use the new version of the tool. Few barriers towards using AMSTAR 2 were identified, and thus it is anticipated that the use of the old version of AMSTAR will continue to decline.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35399051
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01592-y
pii: 10.1186/s12874-022-01592-y
pmc: PMC8996416
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
104Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Open Dent J. 2010 Jul 16;4:84-91
pubmed: 21088686
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 May;109:20-29
pubmed: 30579979
BMC Res Notes. 2014 Sep 06;7:609
pubmed: 25193554
CMAJ. 2010 Dec 14;182(18):E839-42
pubmed: 20603348
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;114:133-140
pubmed: 31152864
Int J Clin Pharm. 2015 Oct;37(5):687-97
pubmed: 26001356
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;99:123-131
pubmed: 29654821
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 May;68(5):574-83
pubmed: 25638457
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;99:24-32
pubmed: 29526556
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jul 13;18(1):869
pubmed: 30005611
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Mar 23;17(1):48
pubmed: 28335734
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jun 18;18(1):56
pubmed: 29914386
Healthcare (Basel). 2020 Nov 01;8(4):
pubmed: 33139623
Oral Health Dent Manag. 2013 Mar;12(1):9-16
pubmed: 23474576
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Aug;144(2):519-530
pubmed: 31348375
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Mar 11;21(1):51
pubmed: 33706710
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 May 8;18(1):37
pubmed: 29739339
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb 15;7:10
pubmed: 17302989
J Evid Based Med. 2020 Nov;13(4):253-254
pubmed: 33145959
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Apr;108:26-33
pubmed: 30543911
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 May;85:50-58
pubmed: 28063911
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020 Nov 26;13:134-142
pubmed: 33717885
EMBO Rep. 2006 Feb;7(2):122-7
pubmed: 16452921
Sci Rep. 2016 Nov 16;6:37208
pubmed: 27848997
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1013-20
pubmed: 19230606
PLoS One. 2007 Dec 26;2(12):e1350
pubmed: 18159233