ABSTRACT
@#BACKGROUND AMSTAR 2 enables a more detailed assessment of systematic reviews and includes non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, compared to its earlier version, AMSTAR. We validated AMSTAR 2 in a group of systematic reviews in dermatology in the Philippines. METHODS We used a cohort of systematic reviews (SRs) in dermatology from the Philippine that were previously described in Part 1 of this 2-part series. The SRs included clinical trials on any intervention for the treatment or prevention of a dermatologic disease or for maintenance of healthy skin, hair or nails. Two reviewers independently extracted data and used AMSTAR 2 to appraise the methodological quality of each included SR. We determined construct validity by comparing the number of critical flaws between a set of non-Cochrane and matched Cochrane reviews, using Wilcoxon rank sum test. We tested for interrater reliability of the AMSTAR 2 tool using Gwet’s AC1 statistic. RESULTS: We included 20 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in dermatology by Philippine-based authors, and a set of 20 reviews from the Cochrane skin group, matched by year and randomly chosen. Construct validity testing showed a significantly greater number of AMSTAR 2 critical flaws (median 4.5 vs 0.0; z=3.64; P=0.000) and non-critical weaknesses (5 vs 2.0; z-score=3.10; P-value=0.001) by non-Cochrane reviews compared to a matched set of Cochrane skin group reviews. There was good interrater reliability (average Gwet’s AC1 statistic = 0.87) with the lowest agreement (0.62) for discussion of heterogeneity (item 14), and the highest agreement (0.97) for study selection criteria (item 3). CONCLUSION The AMSTAR 2 was a valid and reliable tool for assessing systematic reviews using a cohort of reviews by dermatology reviews, both non-Cochrane and Cochrane. Further validation of the AMSTAR 2 is needed to determine if it can be applied to a wide variety of systematic reviews.
ABSTRACT
@#BACKGROUND: Quality systematic reviews (SRs) are essential in the practice of evidence-based dermatology. We assessed the methodologic quality of SRs in dermatology from the Philippines. METHODS: We searched databases (MEDLINE, CDSR, PROSPERO, HERDIN; from inception until June 30, 2019), and secondary sources. We included SRs, authored by Filipino primary authors, which included clinical trials on any intervention for the treatment or prevention of a dermatologic disease or for maintenance of healthy skin, hair or nails. Two reviewers independently extracted data and appraised the methodological quality of each included SR using the AMSTAR 2. The 16-item AMSTAR 2 has 7 critical items and 9 non-critical items. The number of critical items mainly determine the overall confidence in the results of the review. Descriptive analysis using means and standard deviation for continuous data, and frequency and percentage distribution for categorical data were employed. RESULTS: Twenty SRs were included in this review, and were mostly published in the 2010s. Majority of SRs had three authors, who belonged to a single institution, with at least one dermatologist. The most common topic was infections and both oral and topical interventions were used. Majority had 5 included studies in the SRs, with a median number of 425 participants. The median number of critical flaws in the included SRs was 4.5, and non-critical flaws, 5. Overall confidence was critically low in majority (19/20 ) of included reviews, with only one review rated as low. CONCLUSION: The methodologic quality of the dermatology SRs from the Philippines based on the AMSTAR 2 tool was poor with a rating of critically low in majority. There is a need to improve quality of conduct and reporting through dissemination of the reporting guidelines such as the PRISMA