TODENTJ-25-03-2019_TODENTJ-4-84 1553505171 Bentham Open doi@benthamopen.net Bentham Open The Open Dentistry Journal TODENTJ 1874-2106 7 16 2010 4 1 Jason Kung Francesco Chiappelli Olivia O Cajulis Raisa Avezova George Kossan Laura Chew Carl A Maida Research synthesis seeks to gather, examine and evaluate systematically research reports that converge toward answering a carefully crafted research question, which states the problem patient population, the intervention under consideration, and the clinical outcome of interest. The product of the process of systematically reviewing the research literature pertinent to the research question thusly stated is the “systematic review”. The objective and transparent approach of the systematic review aims to minimize bias. Most systematic reviews yield quantitative analyses of measurable data (e.g., acceptable sampling analysis, meta-analysis). Systematic reviews may also be qualitative, while adhering to accepted standards for gathering, evaluating, and reporting evidence. Systematic reviews provide highly rated recommendations for evidence-based health care; but, systematic reviews are not equally reliable and successful in minimizing bias. Several instruments are available to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews. The 'assessment of multiple systematic reviews' (AMSTAR) was derived from factor analysis of the most relevant items among them. AMSTAR consists of eleven items with good face and content validity for measuring the methodological quality of systematic reviews, has been widely accepted and utilized, and has gained in reliability, reproducibility. AMSTAR does not produce quantifiable assessments of systematic review quality and clinical relevance. In this study, we have revised the AMSTAR instrument, detracting nothing from its content and construct validity, and utilizing the very criteria employed in the development of the original tool, with the aim of yielding an instrument that can quantify the quality of systematic reviews. We present validation data of the revised AMSTAR (R-AMSTAR), and discuss its implications and application in evidence-based health care. 7 16 2010 84 91 TODENTJ-4-84 1 10.2174/crossmark_policy opendentistryjournal.com benthamopen.com true Peer Reviewed Single blind Checked with iThenticate 2009-9-24 2009-10-3 2009-10-3 2010-7-16 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ 10.2174/1874210601004010084 1553505171 https://opendentistryjournal.com/VOLUME/4/PAGE/84/ https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V4/TODENTJ-4-84/TODENTJ-4-84.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V4/TODENTJ-4-84/TODENTJ-4-84.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V4/TODENTJ-4-84/TODENTJ-4-84.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V4/TODENTJ-4-84/TODENTJ-4-84.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V4/TODENTJ-4-84/TODENTJ-4-84.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V4/TODENTJ-4-84/TODENTJ-4-84.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V4/TODENTJ-4-84/TODENTJ-4-84.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V4/TODENTJ-4-84/TODENTJ-4-84.xml Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections of Health Services. 2nd. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust 1971. Littell JH, Corcoran J, Pillai V. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford Univeristy Press 2008. Chiappelli F. The science of research synthesis: a manual of evidence-based research for the health sciences. NovaScience Publisher,Inc 2008; pp. 1-327. CRD – critical review dissemination systematic reviews. York GB: York university press 2009. PLoS Med Moher D 4 e78 2007 Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews PLoS Med 2007; 4 (3) : e78. Ann Intern Med Shojania KG 147 224 2007 Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? a survival analysis Ann Intern Med 2007; 147 (4) : 224-33. Int J Technol Assess Health Care Savoie I 19 168 2003 Savoie I, Helmer D, Green CJ, Kazanjian A. Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2003; 19 (1) : 168-78. Chiappelli F. Sustainable evidence-based decision-making. Novascience publisher, Inc 2010. Kung J, Trinh D, Chiappelli F. Evaluating discordant systematic reviews in clinical dentistry IADR/AADR/CADR 87th General Session and Exhibition 2009. BMJ Oxman AD 309 648 1994 Oxman AD. Checklists for review articles BMJ 1994; 309 : 648-51. Shea B, Dubé C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUOROM statement compared to other tools In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, Eds. Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books 2001; pp. 122-39. N Engl J Med Sacks H 316 450 1987 Sacks H, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials N Engl J Med 1987; 316 (8 ) : 450-55. BMC Med Res Methodol Shea BJ 15 7 2007 Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 15 : 7-10.