SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Most systematic reviews reporting adherence to AMSTAR 2 had critically low methodological quality: a cross-sectional meta-research study
15 references·1 citing·38 second hopsampled
Most systematic reviews reporting adherence to AMSTAR 2 had critically low methodological quality: a cross-sectional meta-research study (2023)Most systematic reviews reporting adheren…User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary (2023)User experience of applying A…AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable to systematic reviews of non-intervention studies: a meta-research study (2023)AMSTAR 2 is only partially ap…Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies (2022)Methodological assessment of …AMSTAR 2 appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of heart failure from high-impact journals (2022)AMSTAR 2 appraisal of systema…Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption (2022)Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical ap…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…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…How is AMSTAR applied by authors – a call for better reporting (2018)How is AMSTAR applied by auth…Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR (2018)Comparison of methodological …Are CONSORT checklists submitted by authors adequately reflecting what information is actually reported in published papers? (2018)Are CONSORT checklists submit…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…Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better? (2016)Resuming the discussion of AM…Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)Development of AMSTAR: a meas…Yet another problem with systematic reviews: a living review update (2024)Yet another problem with syst…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)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)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)Simulation Modelling in Healthcare: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Literature Reviews (2017)The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity (2017)Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework (2005)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)The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration (2009)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)The quality of quality criteria: Replicating the development of the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (2019)Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials: a randomised controlled trial (2020)Adherence to the PRISMA statement and its association with risk of bias in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals: A meta-research study (2022)ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions (2016)Use of AMSTAR-2 in the methodological assessment of systematic reviews: protocol for a methodological study (2020)Methodological quality was critically low in 9/10 systematic reviews in advanced cancer patients—A methodological study (2021)A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool (2019)Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA (2019)Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews (2023)Single-Session Interventions for Mental Health Problems and Service Engagement: Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (2025)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007)Can Communication Technologies Reduce Loneliness and Social Isolation in Older People? A Scoping Review of Reviews (2022)Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews: A method for conducting comprehensive analysis (2023)Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials (2001)Quality appraisal of systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy reveals critically low confidence (2021)Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting (2000)RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2019)Socioeconomic inequalities in vaccine uptake: A global umbrella review (2023)Reviewing the performance of AI detection tools in differentiating between AI-generated and human-written texts: A literature and integrative hybrid review (2024)The application of AMSTAR2 in 32 overviews of systematic reviews of interventions for mental and behavioural disorders: A cross‐sectional study (2021)
this work references cited by second hop· second hop is a sample of the most-cited connections

References

  • 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
  • 2016Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better?80 cited
  • 2022AMSTAR 2 appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of heart failure from high-impact journals79 cited
  • 2018How is AMSTAR applied by authors – a call for better reporting78 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
  • 2018Are CONSORT checklists submitted by authors adequately reflecting what information is actually reported in published papers?69 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
  • 2019Psychometric measurements of AMSTAR 2 in a sample of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO41 cited
  • 2023AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable to systematic reviews of non-intervention studies: a meta-research study38 cited
  • 2018Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR36 cited
  • 2022

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

Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies
36 cited
  • 2023User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary32 cited
  • 2022Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption28 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2024Yet another problem with systematic reviews: a living review update20 cited