SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacking discriminating capacity or requirement of high methodological quality?
3 references·14 citing·33 second hop
AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacking discriminating capacity or requirement of high methodological quality? (2019)AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacki…Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA (2019)Meta-analyses indexed in Psyc…A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool (2019)A psychometric study found AM…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…Single-Session Interventions for Mental Health Problems and Service Engagement: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2025)Single-Session Interventions …Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research (2024)Value of preclinical systemat…amstar2Vis : An R package for presenting the critical appraisal of systematic reviews based on the items of AMSTAR 2 (2024)amstar2Vis : An R package for…User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary (2023)User experience of applying A…Most systematic reviews reporting adherence to AMSTAR 2 had critically low methodological quality: a cross-sectional meta-research study (2023)Most systematic reviews repor…Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1 (2023)Guidance to best tools and pr…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…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…Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study (2023)Appraisal methods and outcome…Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies (2022)Methodological assessment of …The application of AMSTAR2 in 32 overviews of systematic reviews of interventions for mental and behavioural disorders: A cross‐sectional study (2021)The application of AMSTAR2 in…Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study (2021)Low methodological quality of…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 Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data (1977)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2 (2021)Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: A methodological systematic review (2021)Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews (2023)Reprint—Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)Work and suicide: An interdisciplinary systematic literature review (2021)Dignity Inherent and Earned: The Experience of Dignity at Work (2022)Eye tracking technology for examining cognitive processes in education: A systematic review (2025)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)Digital Technologies for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention in Older People: Protocol for a Scoping Review (2022)A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis (2010)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey (2022)Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study (2022)Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis (2014)Standardizing Methodologies in Prosthodontics to Improve Research Reliability and Peer Review Efficiency: A Perspective‐Based Proposal (2025)ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation (2018)Addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion in JBI qualitative systematic reviews: a methodological scoping review (2024)Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better? (2016)Yet another problem with systematic reviews: a living review update (2024)Automated analyses of risk of bias and critical appraisal of systematic reviews (ROBIS and AMSTAR 2): a comparison of the performance of 4 large language models (2025)Effects of Web-Based Single-Session Growth Mindset Interventions for Reducing Adolescent Anxiety: Four-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial (2025)Investigating Project Care UK, a Web-Based Self-Help Single-Session Intervention for Youth Mental Health: Program Evaluation (2025)A crowdsourced megastudy of 12 digital single-session interventions for depression in US adults (2026)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both10,605 cited
  • 2019A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool207 cited
  • 2019Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA68 cited

Cited by

  • 2025Single-Session Interventions for Mental Health Problems and Service Engagement: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses107 cited
  • 2023Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews45 cited
  • 2022Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies36 cited
  • 2023User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary32 cited
  • 2021The application of AMSTAR2 in 32 overviews of systematic reviews of interventions for mental and behavioural disorders: A cross‐sectional study30 cited
  • 2021Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study25 cited
  • 2023Most systematic reviews reporting adherence to AMSTAR 2 had critically low methodological quality: a cross-sectional meta-research study23 cited
  • 2023Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews122 cited
  • 2023Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews22 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

20 cited
  • 2023Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews17 cited
  • 2024amstar2Vis : An R package for presenting the critical appraisal of systematic reviews based on the items of AMSTAR 211 cited
  • 2023Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study11 cited
  • 2024Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research8 cited