Abstract

The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.\n

Keywords

Systematic reviewPsychological interventionCritical appraisalObservational studyMedicineHealth careRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicineMEDLINENursingPathology

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life

Clinicians and policymakers are recognizing the importance of measuring health-related quality of life (HRQL) to inform patient management and policy decisions. Self- or intervi...

1993 Annals of Internal Medicine 3924 citations

Publication Info

Year
2017
Type
article
Volume
358
Pages
j4008-j4008
Citations
9213
Access
Closed

External Links

Citation Metrics

9213
OpenAlex

Cite This

Beverley Shea, Barnaby C Reeves, George A. Wells et al. (2017). AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ , 358 , j4008-j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008

Identifiers

DOI
10.1136/bmj.j4008