Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:28:59.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

USING THE AMSTAR CHECKLIST FOR RAPID REVIEWS: IS IT FEASIBLE?

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2016

Jessica Tajana Mattivi  and
Barbara Buchberger
Jessica Tajana Mattivi
Affiliation:
University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Institute for Health Care Management and Researchjessica.mattivi@web.de
Barbara Buchberger
Affiliation:
University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Institute for Health Care Management and Researchjessica.mattivi@web.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Rapid reviews can be conducted in a narrower time frame, as compared to systematic reviews, by featuring restrictions. To estimate the validity of the results, assessment of methodological quality is required. Our aim was to analyze the methodological restrictions of rapid reviews compared with systematic reviews using the AMSTAR checklist and assess its feasibility for rapid reviews.

Methods: A systematic search for literature on rapid reviews of surgical interventions was conducted in three databases: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library. Additionally, health technology assessment (HTA) databases were searched. We analyzed reviews using AMSTAR and additionally compared the results with those of an overview of reviews on the same topic.

Results: Items found more frequently in rapid reviews were search for gray literature (65 percent versus 33 percent), listing of excluded studies (59 percent versus 37 percent), and provision of study characteristics (77 percent versus 44 percent), whereas consideration of study quality in formulating conclusions, conduct of meta-analysis, and statement of conflicts of interest were less frequent. Median time between search and publication was 8 months, with a range between 1 and 27.

Conclusions: With some adjustments, AMSTAR can be used as a checklist for rapid reviews to describe methodological restrictions in comparison to systematic reviews and to roughly estimate the validity of the results. Strikingly, only 14.3 percent of rapid reviews were published within 3 months.

Keywords

Systematic reviewRapid reviewMethodologyDecision makingSurgery
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , 2016 , pp. 276 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Guyatt, GH, Sackett, DL, Sinclair, JC, et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature: IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA. 1995;274:1800–1804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Wallace, BC, Dahabreh, IJ, Schmid, CH, Lau, J, Trikalinos, TA. Modernizing the systematic review process to inform comparative effectiveness: Tools and methods. J Comp Effect Res. 2013;2:273–282.Google Scholar
3. Dobbins, M, Jack, S, Thomas, H, Kothari, A. Public health decision-makers’ informational needs and preferences for receiving research evidence. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007;4:156–163.Google Scholar
4. Perleth, M, Lühmann, D, Gibis, B, Droste, S. “Rapid Assessments”: Schnelle Bewertung medizinischer Technologien. ZaefQ. 2001;95:76–80.Google Scholar
5. Oxman, AD, Schünemann, HJ, Fretheim, A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:20.Google Scholar
6. Ganann, R, Ciliska, D, Thomas, H. Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.Google Scholar
7. AMSTAR – Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. AMSTAR Checklist. http://www.amstar.ca/Amstar_Checklist.php (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
8. Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: Validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg. 2008;78:1037–1040.Google Scholar
9. Martel, G, Duhaime, S, Barkun, JS, et al. The quality of research synthesis in surgery: The case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Syst Rev. 2012;1:14.Google Scholar
10. Shea, BJ, Grimshaw, JM, Wells, GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.Google Scholar
11. Shea, BJ, Bouter, LM, Peterson, J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007;2:e1350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Shea, BJ, Hamel, C, Wells, GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1013–1020.Google Scholar
13. Bond, K, Dennett, L. Stingray™ catheter and guidewire for recanalization of coronary chronic total occlusions. A rapid evidence assessment. Edmonton: Institute of Health Economics; 2013. http://www.ihe.ca/documents/Stingray%20catheter%20and%20guidewire%20for%20recanalization%20of%20coronary%20chronic%20total%20occlusions.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
14. Fischer, S, Zechmeister, I. Sakralnervenstimulation bei fäkaler Inkontinenz. Rapid Assessment 004. Ludwig Boltzmann Institut, Wien, 2011. http://eprints.hta.lbg.ac.at/925/1/Rapid_Assessment_004.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
15. Hill, R, Bagust, A, Bakhai, A, et al. Coronary artery stents: A rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii–iv, 1–242.Google Scholar
16. Humphreys, K. Upper airway surgery for the treatment of adult obstructive sleep apnoea. ASERNIP-S Report No. 67. Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S; 2008. http://www.surgeons.org/media/300727/Upper_airway_surgery_for_adult_OSA.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
17. Jobanputra, P, Parry, D, Fry-Smith, A, Burls, A. Effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte transplantation for hyaline cartilage defects in knees: A rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–57.Google Scholar
18. Kim, DG, Choi, YY, An, JY, et al. Comparing the short-term outcomes of totally intracorporeal gastroduodenostomy with extracorporeal gastroduodenostomy after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A single surgeon's experience and a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3153–3161.Google Scholar
19. Kvas, E. Medikamentfreisetzende Stents bei Koronarinterventionen im Vergleich zu nicht beschichteten Stents. Rapid Assessment 001. Ludwig Boltzmann Institut, Wien: 2006. http://eprints.hta.lbg.ac.at/34/1/Rapid_Assessment_001.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
20. Lee, I. Clinical treatments for wrist ganglia. ASERNIP-S Report No. 63. Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S; 2008. http://www.surgeons.org/media/310861/Clinical_treatment_for_wrist_ganglia.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
21. Leopardi, D, Hoggan, B. Treatments for varicose veins. ASERNIP-S Report No. 66. Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S; 2008. http://www.surgeons.org/media/300551/Treatments_for_varicose_veins.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
22. Meads, C, Cummins, C, Jolly, K, et al. Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: A rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Migliore, A, Jefferson, T, Cerbo, M, Abraha, I, Montedori, A. Implantable devices for the closure of patent foramen ovale in adults: An Italian rapid health technology assessment. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014;11:151–161.Google Scholar
24. Murphy, G, Cunningham, J. Percutaneous heart valve replacement for valvular heart disease: A review of the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and guidelines. CADTH (Health Technology Inquiry Service) 2010. http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/l0149_percutaneous_heart_valves_htis-2.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
25. Parkes, J, Bryant, J, Milne, R. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in arrhythmias: A rapid and systematic review of effectiveness. Heart. 2002;87:438–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Perera, C. Male non-therapeutic circumcision. ASERNIP-S Report No. 65. Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S; 2008. http://www.surgeons.org/media/292210/Male_non-therapeutic_circumcision.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
27. Stordeur, S, Gerkens, S, Roberfroid, D. Interspinous implants and pedicle screws for dynamic stabilization of lumbar spine: Rapid assessment. KCE Reports 116, 2009. https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/page_documents/d20091027346.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
28. Thavaneswaran, P. Robotic-assisted surgery for urological, cardiac and gynaecological procedures. ASERNIP-S Report No. 75. Adelaide, South Australia: ASERNIP-S; 2009. http://www.surgeons.org/media/299238/RPT_2009-12-09_Robotic-assisted_Surgery.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
29. Vlayen, J, Camberlin, C, Paulus, D, Ramaekers, D. Rapid assessment of emerging spine technologies: Intervertebral disc replacement and vertebro/balloon kyphoplasty. KCE Reports 39, 2006. https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/page_documents/20061027339.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
30. Harker, J, Kleijnen, J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10:397–410.Google Scholar
31. Da Costa, BR, Cevallos, M, Altman, DG, Rutjes, AW, Egger, M. Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: Bibliographic study. BMJ Open. 2011;1:e000048.Google Scholar
32. Buchberger, B, von Elm, E, Gartlehner, G, et al. Assessment of risk of bias in controlled studies. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2014;57:1432–1438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Dreier, M, Borutta, B, Stahmeyer, J, Krauth, C, Walter, U. Comparison of tools for assessing the methodological quality of primary and secondary studies in health technology assessment reports in Germany. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2010;6:Doc07.Google Scholar
34. Buscemi, N, Hartling, L, Vandermeer, B, Tjosvold, L, Klassen, TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:697–703.Google Scholar
35. Royle, P, Waugh, N. Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessments reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii, ix–51.Google Scholar
36. Oxman, AD, Schunemann, HJ, Fretheim, A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 14. Reporting guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:26.Google Scholar
37. Palmer, S, Jansen, A, Leitmeyer, K, Murdoch, H, Forland, F. Evidence-based medicine applied to the control of communicable disease incidents when evidence is scarce and the time is limited. Euro Surveill. 2013;18:pii:20507.Google Scholar
38. Higgins, JPT, Altman, DG, Sterne, JAC. 8.3.3 Quality scales and Cochrane reviews. InHiggins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
39. Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:133–139.Google Scholar
40. Sampson, M, Shojania, KG, Garritty, C, et al. Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:531–536.Google Scholar
41. Shojania, KG, Sampson, M, Ansari, MT, et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:224–233.Google Scholar
42. Bastian, H, Glasziou, P, Chalmers, I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326.Google Scholar
43. EUnetHTA – European Network for Health Technology Assessment 2013. HTA Core Model® for rapid relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals. http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/Model%20for%20Rapid%20REA%20of%20pharmaceuticals_final_20130311_reduced.pdf (accessed June 4, 2015).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mattivi and Buchberger supplementary material

Supplementary Table 1

Download Mattivi and Buchberger supplementary material(File)
File 14.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mattivi and Buchberger supplementary material

Supplementary Table 2

Download Mattivi and Buchberger supplementary material(File)
File 16.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Mattivi and Buchberger supplementary material

Supplementary Table 3

Download Mattivi and Buchberger supplementary material(File)
File 17.7 KB