Agreement testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies
Michael L Henry, Neil E O’Connell, Richard D Riley, Karel G M Moons, Beverley J Shea, Lotty Hooft, Sarah B Wallwork, Johanna A A G Damen, Nicole Skoetz, Ruth P Appiah, Carolyn Berryman, Sophie M Crouch, Grace A Ferencz, Ashley R Grant, Katherine M Henry, Aleksandra M Herman

TL;DR
This study tested a new tool called AMSTAR-PF for evaluating the quality of systematic reviews on prognostic factors and found it to be useful despite some variability in ratings.
Contribution
The study introduces and evaluates the usability of AMSTAR-PF, a novel quality appraisal tool for systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies.
Findings
Interrater agreement averaged 0.59, indicating moderate agreement across domains.
Intrapair agreement was higher at 0.75, with 94.6% of ratings being identical or one category apart.
Appraisal time improved with use, averaging 34 minutes after the first two appraisals.
Abstract
To test the agreement and usability of a novel quality appraisal tool: A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews of Prognostic Factor studies (AMSTAR-PF). Observational study. 14 appraisers of varied experience levels and backgrounds, including undergraduate, master’s and PhD students, postgraduate researchers, research fellows and clinicians. Eight systematic reviews were rated by all reviewers using AMSTAR-PF. Planned measures included intrapair and inter-pair agreement using Cohen’s and Fleiss’ kappa, time of use and time to reach consensus. Interrater agreement was an added measure, and Gwet’s agreement coefficient was calculated and presented due to its greater stability across agreement levels. The percentage of intrapair agreements identical or one category apart was also presented. Interrater agreement averaged 0.59 (range 0.21–0.90), inter-pair agreement 0.61 (range…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews · Reliability and Agreement in Measurement · Health Education and Validation
