gms | German Medical Science

23. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

01. - 03.09.2022, Lübeck

Appraising systematic reviews of digital interventions for physical activity promotion using two vs. 16 AMSTAR2 items

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • Katja Matthias - University of Applied Sciences Stralsund, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Stralsund, Deutschland
  • Karina Karolina De Santis - Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology – BIPS, Department Prevention and Evaluation, Deutschland; Leibniz Science Campus Digital Public Health Bremen, Bremen, Deutschland

Evidenzbasierte Medizin für eine bedarfsgerechte Gesundheitsversorgung. 23. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin. Lübeck, 01.-03.09.2022. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2022. Doc22ebmVS-4-03

doi: 10.3205/22ebm034, urn:nbn:de:0183-22ebm0341

Published: August 30, 2022

© 2022 Matthias et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Outline

Text

Background/research question: Digital interventions (DI) could support public health measures, such as physical activity (PA) promotion. Since many systematic reviews (SRs) already addressed this topic, the current study aimed to appraise such SRs using two different combinations of items on AMSTAR2, a 16-item evaluation tool [1]. AMSTAR2 assigns overall confidence ratings (high, moderate, low, critically low) to SRs according to 7/9 critical/non-critical items. In general, critically low ratings are assigned if at least 2 critical items are not fulfilled (rated as ‘no’) on AMSTAR2.

Methods: The protocol for this study was registered in OSF [2]. Of 300 reviews on DI and PA published up to March 2021 in Medline, PsycInfo and CINAHL, k=30 SRs focusing on DI for PA promotion were included in this cross-sectional study. The SRs were independently selected by two researchers and appraised with AMSTAR2 by one researcher in two steps. First, all SRs were appraised with 2 critical items (item 2: presence of SR protocol and item 7: report of a list of excluded studies). These items were selected according to a fast and frugal decision tree for the critical appraisal of SR [3]. Second, all SRs were appraised using all 16 items [1]. The outcomes of both appraisal methods were compared descriptively based on correctness and appraisal time.

Results: Based on 2 items 19/30 SRs were rated as ‘critically low’ (63.3%) due to 2 ‘no’ ratings. Further 11/30 SRs (36.7%) with 0-1 ‘no’ ratings on item 2 or 7 had to be evaluated with all AMSTAR2 items to obtain a final appraisal rating. The appraisal outcomes were 0/11 ‘high’, 1/11 ‘moderate’, 3/11 ‘low’ and 7/11 ‘critically low’. Based on 16 items, the overall confidence ratings were 0/30 ‘high’, 1/30 (3.3%) ‘moderate’, 3/30 (10%) ‘low’ and 26/30 (86.7%) ‘critically low’. Relative to appraisals derived based on 16 items, 19/26 (73.1%) SRs were correctly rated as ‘critically low’ with 2 items. The average time for individual SR appraisal was 20 min with 16 items and 5 min with 2 items. The appraisal time for all 30 SRs was 10 h with 16 items and 4 h and 20 min with 2 items.

Conclusion: Using the proposed fast and frugal decision tree it is possible to reliably assign critically low overall confidence ratings and to save time. Thus, two critical items on AMSTAR2 can help to identify SRs with the lowest confidence ratings. According to AMSTAR2 the overall confidence in the results of SRs of DI for PA promotion is disappointing and needs improvement.

Competing interests: none


References

1.
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008. DOIi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008
2.
De Santis KK, Jahnel T, Mergenthal L, Zeeb H, Matthias K. Evaluation of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion: Protocol for a Scoping Review. JMIR Res Protoc. 2022 Mar 3;11(3):e35332. DOI: 10.2196/35332 External link
3.
Lorenz R, Jacobs A, Matthias K. Fast and frugal decision tree for the critical appraisal of systematic reviews in situations with limited time periods. In: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie, editor. 65th Annual Meeting of the German Association for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (GMDS), Meeting of the Central European Network (CEN: German Region, Austro-Swiss Region and Polish Region) of the International Biometric Society (IBS). Berlin, 06.-09.09.2020. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2021. DocAbstr. 406. DOI: 10.3205/20gmds357 External link