↓ Skip to main content

Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12874-015-0062-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clovis Mariano Faggion

Abstract

Systematic reviews are pivotal components in the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines. To evaluate the methodological quality of these systematic reviews, several tools have been proposed. Among them, the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) checklist is probably used most frequently. This tool comprises 11 items related to the steps taken when conducting a systematic review, and it is claimed to have good face and content validity. The objective of this debate paper was twofold: (a) to critically evaluate the ability of all AMSTAR checklist items to adequately determine the methodological quality of a systematic review; and (b) to describe difficulties regarding interpretation of the checklist, and provide potential solutions for these difficulties. Some items of the AMSTAR checklist seem to assess the quality of reporting of a systematic review more than its methodological quality. For example, item 7 may not "capture" the true methodological quality of primary studies included in the systematic review. Item 10 does not likely result in the collection of in-depth information on the presence of publication bias in the systematic review. Furthermore, some items may be difficult to interpret, hindering accurate assessment. For example, item 5 does not explicitly indicate whether a list of documents excluded in each phase of selection (i.e., after evaluation of titles and abstracts, and after full-text assessment) should be reported. The present debate paper evaluated and discussed some methodological limitations of the AMSTAR checklist, as well as challenges involved in evaluation of the checklist's items. Several suggestions are also made to optimize the use of this checklist. The information in this paper may stimulate further discussion among systematic reviewers, methodologists and clinicians.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Pakistan 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 11%
Researcher 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 19%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 10 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,620,071
of 14,207,392 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#275
of 1,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,324
of 235,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,207,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 235,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them