SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool
11 references·16 citing·48 second hopsampled
A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool (2019)A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be…AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisa…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)ROBIS: A new tool to assess r…A comparison of Cohen’s Kappa and Gwet’s AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: a study conducted with personality disorder samples (2013)A comparison of Cohen’s Kappa…Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review (2012)Overviews of reviews often ha…Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? (2010)Seventy-Five Trials and Eleve…AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2009)AMSTAR is a reliable and vali…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…Computing inter‐rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement (2006)Computing inter‐rater reliabi…The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis (1999)The Hazards of Scoring the Qu…The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)The Measurement of Observer A…Gwet's AC1 is not a substitute for Cohen's kappa – A comparison of basic properties (2023)Gwet's AC1 is not a substitut…Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews (2023)Guidance to best tools and pr…Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews (2023)Guidance to best tools and pr…Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of superior capsular reconstruction (2022)Evaluation of spin in systema…Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews (2021)Similarities, reliability and…Quality appraisal of systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy reveals critically low confidence (2021)Quality appraisal of systemat…Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the treatment of proximal humeral fractures (2021)Evaluation of spin in the abs…Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: A methodological systematic review (2021)Cochrane's risk of bias tool …A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2 (2021)A comparison of two assessmen…Use of AMSTAR-2 in the methodological assessment of systematic reviews: protocol for a methodological study (2020)Use of AMSTAR-2 in the method…The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS (2020)The quality of systematic rev…The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study (2020)The methodological quality of…Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers (2020)Quality and risk of bias appr…Authors should clearly report how they derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2—a cross-sectional study (2020)Authors should clearly report…Psychometric measurements of AMSTAR 2 in a sample of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO (2019)Psychometric measurements of …AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacking discriminating capacity or requirement of high methodological quality? (2019)AMSTAR 2 overall confidence r…A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales (1960)Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. (1968)Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. (1971)Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed (2010)Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed (2011)Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. (1979)Meta-analysis in clinical trials (1986)Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test (1997)Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields (2004)How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data (2009)Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies (2013)STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT (1986)Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions (2011)Risks of all-cause and suicide mortality in mental disorders: a meta-review (2014)Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews (2014)Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use (1989)Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? (1996)The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. (1998)Summarizing systematic reviews (2015)Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS) (2016)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research (1987)Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology (2016)The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2021)Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. (1994)Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version (K-SADS-PL): Initial Reliability and Validity Data (1997)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement (2015)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (2018)PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies (2018)International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (2013)Quality assessment of observational studies in a drug-safety systematic review, comparison of two tools: the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and the RTI item bank (2014)Social networks, social capital, social support and academic success in higher education: A systematic review with a special focus on ‘underrepresented’ students (2019)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

  • 1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data81,000 cited
  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
  • 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews4,376 cited
  • 2015ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed2,266 cited
  • 2006Computing inter‐rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement2,139 cited
  • 1999The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis1,981 cited
  • 2009AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews1,756 cited
  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
  • 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?1,185 cited
  • 2013A comparison of Cohen’s Kappa and Gwet’s AC1 when calculating inter-rater reliability coefficients: a study conducted with personality disorder samples1,021 cited
  • 2012Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review213 cited

Cited by

  • 2021Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: A methodological systematic review187 cited
  • 2023Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

163 cited
  • 2021A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2129 cited
  • 2023Gwet's AC1 is not a substitute for Cohen's kappa – A comparison of basic properties88 cited
  • 2020Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers73 cited
  • 2020The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study73 cited
  • 2020The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS71 cited
  • 2020Use of AMSTAR-2 in the methodological assessment of systematic reviews: protocol for a methodological study65 cited
  • 2020Authors should clearly report how they derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2—a cross-sectional study60 cited
  • 2019AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacking discriminating capacity or requirement of high methodological quality?48 cited
  • 2021Quality appraisal of systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy reveals critically low confidence46 cited
  • 2023Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews45 cited
  • 2019Psychometric measurements of AMSTAR 2 in a sample of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO41 cited
  • 2021Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews41 cited
  • 2021Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the treatment of proximal humeral fractures34 cited
  • 2022Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of superior capsular reconstruction34 cited