Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize all available evidence on measurement properties in terms of reliability, validity, and feasibility of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, including R(evised)-AMSTAR. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psycinfo, and CINAHL were searched for studies containing information on measurement properties of the tools in October 2013. We extracted data on study characteristics and measurement properties. These data were analyzed following measurement criteria. RESULTS: We included 13 studies, four of them were labeled as validation studies. Nine articles dealt with AMSTAR, two articles dealt with R-AMSTAR, and one article dealt with both instruments. In terms of interrater reliability, most items showed a substantial agreement (>0.6). The median intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the overall score of AMSTAR was 0.83 (range 0.60-0.98), indicating a high agreement. In terms of validity, ICCs were very high with all but one ICC lower than 0.8 when the AMSTAR score was compared with scores from other tools. Scoring AMSTAR takes between 10 and 20 minutes. CONCLUSION: AMSTAR seems to be reliable and valid. Further investigations for systematic reviews of other study designs than randomized controlled trials are needed. R-AMSTAR should be further investigated as evidence for its use is limited and its measurement properties have not been studied sufficiently. In general, test-retest reliability should be investigated in future studies.

Climbing for preventing and treating health problems: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the best available evidence on effectiveness of therapeutic or sport climbing in preventing or treating health problems. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, PEDro, OTseeker and SportDiscus for randomized controlled trials published up to December 26, 2010. We included all trials assessing patient-relevant outcomes. Two reviewers independently selected relevant studies, assessed their methodological quality and extracted data. Quality of evidence was rated using the GRADE system. Data were entered into RevMan 5 to calculate effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals where appropriate. RESULTS: Eligible for inclusion were four RCTs studying the effectiveness of climbing in (a) geriatric patients, (b) adults with multiple sclerosis, (c) adults with chronic low-back pain and (d) children with disabilities and poor motor function. The sample sizes ranged between 20 and 95. All trials had major methodological limitations. We found very low quality evidence that therapeutic climbing may improve activities of daily living in geriatric patients compared to physiotherapy as measured by the Barthel index (difference in mean change score: 2.32 [95%-CI: 0.45 to 4.19]). We found very low quality evidence that therapeutic climbing compared to standard exercise therapy may improve physical functioning (difference in mean change score: 16.15 [95%-CI: 4.45 to 27.85]) and general physical health (13.14 [95%-CI: 3.61 to 22.67]) as measured by the SF-36 in adults with chronic low back-pain. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the effectiveness of therapeutic climbing is limited to small trials at high risk of bias. The effects of therapeutic climbing are therefore unclear.