两种评估系统评价方法学质量的工具:ReMarQ和AMSTAR 2的比较

Manuel Marques-Cruz, Paula Perestrelo, Alexandro W. L. Chu, Sara Gil-Mata, Pau Riera-Serra, Bernardo Sousa-Pinto
{"title":"两种评估系统评价方法学质量的工具:ReMarQ和AMSTAR 2的比较","authors":"Manuel Marques-Cruz,&nbsp;Paula Perestrelo,&nbsp;Alexandro W. L. Chu,&nbsp;Sara Gil-Mata,&nbsp;Pau Riera-Serra,&nbsp;Bernardo Sousa-Pinto","doi":"10.1002/gin2.70021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Several tools are available for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The ReMarQ tool – centred on the assessment of the reporting methodological quality of systematic reviews – comprises 26 dichotomous items and does not require clinical or background knowledge of the review topic for its application. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of evaluating the methodological quality of systematic reviews using ReMarQ and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. We assessed a sample of randomly selected systematic reviews published in medical journals using ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2. We calculated the correlation and agreement between the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ and the number of (i) fulfilled and (ii) fulfilled or partially fulfilled items according to AMSTAR 2. We assessed 51 systematic reviews using both tools. The number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ was strongly correlated with the number of fulfilled items (<span></span><math></math> = 0.79; 95%CI = 0.65;0.87) and the number of fulfilled or partially fulfilled items (<span></span><math></math> = 0.85; 95%CI = 0.74;0.90) in AMSTAR 2. The percentage of fulfilled ReMarQ items displayed a high agreement with the percentage of fulfilled or partially fulfilled AMSTAR items. In conclusion, the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ is strongly correlated with that in AMSTAR 2 and there is good agreement between these two tools on the percentage of fulfilled items.</p>","PeriodicalId":100266,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70021","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison between two tools assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews: ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2\",\"authors\":\"Manuel Marques-Cruz,&nbsp;Paula Perestrelo,&nbsp;Alexandro W. L. Chu,&nbsp;Sara Gil-Mata,&nbsp;Pau Riera-Serra,&nbsp;Bernardo Sousa-Pinto\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/gin2.70021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Several tools are available for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The ReMarQ tool – centred on the assessment of the reporting methodological quality of systematic reviews – comprises 26 dichotomous items and does not require clinical or background knowledge of the review topic for its application. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of evaluating the methodological quality of systematic reviews using ReMarQ and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. We assessed a sample of randomly selected systematic reviews published in medical journals using ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2. We calculated the correlation and agreement between the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ and the number of (i) fulfilled and (ii) fulfilled or partially fulfilled items according to AMSTAR 2. We assessed 51 systematic reviews using both tools. The number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ was strongly correlated with the number of fulfilled items (<span></span><math></math> = 0.79; 95%CI = 0.65;0.87) and the number of fulfilled or partially fulfilled items (<span></span><math></math> = 0.85; 95%CI = 0.74;0.90) in AMSTAR 2. The percentage of fulfilled ReMarQ items displayed a high agreement with the percentage of fulfilled or partially fulfilled AMSTAR items. In conclusion, the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ is strongly correlated with that in AMSTAR 2 and there is good agreement between these two tools on the percentage of fulfilled items.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines\",\"volume\":\"2 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gin2.70021\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gin2.70021\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Public Health Guidelines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gin2.70021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有几种工具可用于评估系统评价的方法学质量。ReMarQ工具以评估系统评价的报告方法学质量为中心,包括26个二分项目,不需要对评价主题有临床或背景知识即可使用。在本研究中,我们旨在比较使用ReMarQ和评估系统评价的测量工具(AMSTAR) 2评估系统评价方法学质量的结果。我们使用ReMarQ和AMSTAR 2评估了随机选择的发表在医学期刊上的系统评价样本。我们根据AMSTAR 2计算了ReMarQ中已完成项目的数量与(i)已完成和(ii)已完成或部分完成项目的数量之间的相关性和一致性。我们使用这两种工具评估了51个系统评价。ReMarQ的完成项目数与完成项目数呈显著正相关(= 0.79;95%CI = 0.65;0.87)和已完成或部分完成项目的数量(= 0.85;95%CI = 0.74;0.90)。ReMarQ项目的完成百分比与AMSTAR项目的完成或部分完成百分比高度一致。综上所述,ReMarQ中的完成项目数量与AMSTAR 2中的完成项目数量有很强的相关性,并且这两个工具在完成项目百分比上有很好的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison between two tools assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews: ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2

Comparison between two tools assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews: ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2

Several tools are available for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The ReMarQ tool – centred on the assessment of the reporting methodological quality of systematic reviews – comprises 26 dichotomous items and does not require clinical or background knowledge of the review topic for its application. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of evaluating the methodological quality of systematic reviews using ReMarQ and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. We assessed a sample of randomly selected systematic reviews published in medical journals using ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2. We calculated the correlation and agreement between the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ and the number of (i) fulfilled and (ii) fulfilled or partially fulfilled items according to AMSTAR 2. We assessed 51 systematic reviews using both tools. The number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ was strongly correlated with the number of fulfilled items ( = 0.79; 95%CI = 0.65;0.87) and the number of fulfilled or partially fulfilled items ( = 0.85; 95%CI = 0.74;0.90) in AMSTAR 2. The percentage of fulfilled ReMarQ items displayed a high agreement with the percentage of fulfilled or partially fulfilled AMSTAR items. In conclusion, the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ is strongly correlated with that in AMSTAR 2 and there is good agreement between these two tools on the percentage of fulfilled items.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信