Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 10, 2026

Author Spotlight: Developing a Point-of-Care Hemoglobin Estimation Method for Anemia Management
Published on: January 19, 2024
Methodological use and report of AMSTAR 2: a cross-sectional study
Ruzica Bojcic1, Mate Todoric2, Mirko Gabelica3
1Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Health Center Zagreb-Center, Zagreb, Croatia.
This study analyzed how the Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) is reported in research. While adherence to AMSTAR 2 guidelines has improved, significant gaps in justification and transparency persist.
Area of Science:
- Meta-research
- Evidence synthesis methodology
- Systematic review quality assessment
Background:
- The Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) is a widely used tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
- Understanding the reporting and methodological practices associated with AMSTAR 2 is crucial for ensuring the reliability and reproducibility of evidence syntheses.
- Previous research has highlighted variability in the application and reporting of AMSTAR 2.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze the reporting and methodology of studies that used AMSTAR 2 for assessing systematic reviews.
- To evaluate temporal trends in AMSTAR 2-related reporting practices between 2018 and 2023.
Main Methods:
- A cross-sectional meta-research study was conducted, analyzing 444 scholarly articles that applied AMSTAR 2.
- Data on reporting and methodology were extracted and analyzed.
- Temporal trends in seven AMSTAR 2 reporting practices were evaluated using correlation tests and linear regression.
Main Results:
- Most AMSTAR 2 assessments (78%) involved multiple authors, with 91% conducted independently.
- The recommended rating system (84%) and critical domains (82%) were frequently used.
- While confidence ratings were reported in 76% of studies, only 30% provided a rationale.
- Domain-level judgments were presented in 72% of studies, but with justifications in only 3%.
- Significant increasing trends were observed in most reporting practices over time, with 1-20 additional studies per year adopting recommended procedures.
Conclusions:
- Authors should enhance transparency by clearly defining key domains and explaining the determination of overall confidence ratings.
- Reporting both overall ratings and domain-level judgments with justifications is essential for replication and updating of evidence syntheses.
- Despite improvements in adherence to AMSTAR 2 guidance, substantial gaps in justification and transparency require attention.
More Related Videos
08:33A Cross-Disciplinary and Multi-Modal Experimental Design for Studying Near-Real-Time Authentic Examination Experiences
Published on: September 4, 2019
09:33Visualizing Field Data Collection Procedures of Exposure and Biomarker Assessments for the Household Air Pollution Intervention Network Trial in India
Published on: December 23, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Observational Studies
There are three types of observational studies – Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional.
Prospective Study
Prospective studies, also known as longitudinal or cohort studies, are carried out by collecting future data from groups sharing similar characteristics. One...
Cross-Sectional Research
Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...
Longitudinal Research
Statistical Methods for Analyzing Epidemiological Data
Statistical Methods to Analyze Parametric Data: ANOVA
One-way ANOVA is applied when a single independent variable or factor is scrutinized. It compares...