11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Effects of exogenous melatonin supplementation on health outcomes: An umbrella review of meta-analyses based on randomized controlled trials

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Combination of Estimates from Different Experiments

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach.

            With the increase in the number of systematic reviews available, a logical next step to provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they require has been the conduct of reviews of existing systematic reviews. Syntheses of existing systematic reviews are referred to by many different names, one of which is an umbrella review. An umbrella review allows the findings of reviews relevant to a review question to be compared and contrasted. An umbrella review's most characteristic feature is that this type of evidence synthesis only considers for inclusion the highest level of evidence, namely other systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A methodology working group was formed by the Joanna Briggs Institute to develop methodological guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review, including diverse types of evidence, both quantitative and qualitative. The aim of this study is to describe the development and guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.

              Our purpose was to measure the agreement, reliability, construct validity, and feasibility of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). We randomly selected 30 systematic reviews from a database. Each was assessed by two reviewers using: (1) the enhanced quality assessment questionnaire (Overview of Quality Assessment Questionnaire [OQAQ]); (2) Sacks' instrument; and (3) our newly developed measurement tool (AMSTAR). We report on reliability (interobserver kappas of the 11 AMSTAR items), intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of the sum scores, construct validity (ICCs of the sum scores of AMSTAR compared with those of other instruments), and completion times. The interrater agreement of the individual items of AMSTAR was substantial with a mean kappa of 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57, 0.83) (range: 0.38-1.0). Kappas recorded for the other instruments were 0.63 (95% CI: 0.38, 0.78) for enhanced OQAQ and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.29, 0.50) for the Sacks' instrument. The ICC of the total score for AMSTAR was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.92) compared with 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.96) for OQAQ and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.71, 0.94) for the Sacks' instrument. AMSTAR proved easy to apply, each review taking about 15 minutes to complete. AMSTAR has good agreement, reliability, construct validity, and feasibility. These findings need confirmation by a broader range of assessors and a more diverse range of reviews.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pharmacological Research
                Pharmacological Research
                Elsevier BV
                10436618
                February 2022
                February 2022
                : 176
                : 106052
                Article
                10.1016/j.phrs.2021.106052
                34999224
                0caaf883-7f15-4ad7-bb43-6846f9d41b5b
                © 2022

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article