Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies
Henry, M.; O'Connell, N.; Riley, R.; Moons, K.; Shea, B.; Hooft, L.; Wallwork, S.; Damen, J.; Skoetz, N.; Appiah, R.; Berryman, C.; Crouch, S.; Ferencz, G.; Grant, A.; Henry, K.; Herman, A.; Karran, E.; Koralegedera, I.; Leake, H.; MacIntyre, E.; Mouatt, B.; Phuentsho, K.; Van Der Laan, D.; Welsby, E.; Wiles, L.; Wilkinson, E.; Wilson, M.; Wilson, M.; Moseley, L.
Show abstract
BackgroundThis paper details initial testing of the agreeability and usability of a novel quality appraisal tool for systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies: AMSTAR-PF. MethodsFourteen appraisers each assessed eight systematic reviews using AMSTAR-PF. Their ratings for each question and each article were compared, with interrater, inter-pair and intrapair agreeability calculated using Gwets agreement coefficient. Time of use and time to reach consensus were also recorded. ResultsInterrater agreement averaged 0.59 (range, 0.21-0.90), inter-pair 0.61 (range 0.24-0.91) and intrapair 0.75 (range 0.45-0.95) across the domains, with agreement for the overall rating 0.46 (95%CI 0.30-0.62) for interrater, 0.46 (95%CI 0.17-0.74) for inter-pair, and 0.68 (range of averages 0.22-1.00) for intrapair agreement. The majority (60.7%) of intrapair ratings were identical, with 94.6% of final ratings either identical or only one category different for the overall appraisal. The time taken to appraise a study with AMSTAR-PF improved with use and averaged around 34 minutes after the first two appraisals. ConclusionsDespite some variance in agreeability for different domains and between different appraisers, the testing results suggest that AMSTAR-PF has clear utility for appraising the quality of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data 96%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 96%
- Fast and frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 96%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 95%
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 96%
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 96%
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: A systematic review 95%
- Creating an Indexing Scheme for Case Series Articles 94%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.