Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep 21:358:j4008.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008.

AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

Beverley J Shea  1   2   3 , Barnaby C Reeves  4 , George Wells  3   5 , Micere Thuku  6   2 , Candyce Hamel  6 , Julian Moran  7 , David Moher  6   3 , Peter Tugwell  6   2   3   8 , Vivian Welch  2   3 , Elizabeth Kristjansson  9 , David A Henry  10   11   12
Affiliations

AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

Beverley J Shea et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000326. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:597-9. 10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moher D. Alessandro Liberati, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, and the PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for (SR) and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;6:264-9. 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12. 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.handbook.cochrane.org.

MeSH terms