| Title |
Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0237-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brittany U. Burda, Haley K. Holmer, Susan L. Norris |
| Abstract |
A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is a commonly used tool to assess the quality of systematic reviews; however, modifications are needed to improve its usability, reliability, and validity. In this commentary, we summarize our experience and the experiences of others who have used AMSTAR and provide suggestions for its improvement. We propose that AMSTAR should modify a number of individual items and their instructions and responses to make them more congruent with an assessment of the methodologic quality of systematic reviews. We recommend adding new items and modifying existing items to assess the quality of the body of evidence and to address subgroup and sensitivity analyses. More detailed instructions are needed for scoring individual items across multiple reviewers, and we recommend that a total score should not be calculated. These suggestions need to be empirically tested prior to implementation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 38% |
| Canada | 4 | 19% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 57% |
| Scientists | 6 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 18% |
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 27 | 28% |
| Unknown | 13 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 May 2016.
All research outputs
#2,512,706
of 23,509,982 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#455
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,000
of 302,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,982 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 302,428 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.