Skip to main content

Table 4 Interrater agreement for R-AMSTAR

From: Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR

Item Criterion Gwet’s AC1 SEM 95% CI
1. Was an ‘a priori’ design provided A 0.02 0.11 −0.20-0.24
B 0.93 0.03 0.88–0.99
C 0.34 0.10 0.15–0.54
2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction A 0.78 0.06 0.66–0.90
B 0.64 0.08 0.48–0.79
C 0.62 0.08 0.45–0.78
3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed A 0.97 0.02 0.93–1.00
B 0.94 0.03 0.89–0.99
C 0.25 0.11 0.03–0.47
D 0.55 0.09 0.38–0.73
E 0.83 0.05 0.73–0.93
4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion A 0.55 0.09 0.38–0.72
B −0.32 0.10 −0.52-(−0.12)
C 0.24 0.10 0.04–0.44
D 0.75 0.07 0.61–0.88
5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided A 0.95 0.02 0.89–1
B 0.79 0.06 0.67–0.92
C 0.41 0.10 0.21–0.60
D 0.48 0.09 0.30–0.66
6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided A 0.79 0.06 0.68–0.91
B 0.46 0.09 0.28–0.64
C 0.60 0.08 0.43–0.76
7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented A 0.86 0.04 0.77–0.95
B 0.66 0.08 0.50–0.81
C 0.61 0.08 0.45–0.78
D 0.73 0.07 0.59–0.86
8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions A 0.66 0.08 0.50–0.81
B 0.23 0.10 0.03–0.43
C 0.28 0.10 0.07–0.48
D 0.97 0.02 0.93–1
9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate A 0.71 0.07 0.57–0.85
B 0.74 0.07 0.60–0.88
C 0.68 0.08 0.53–0.83
D 0.67 0.08 0.52–0.82
E 0.47 0.10 0.28–0.66
10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed A 0.58 0.08 0.41–0.74
B 0.80 0.06 0.69–0.92
C 0.95 0.03 0.90–1
11. Was the conflict of interest included A 0.70 0.07 0.56–0.84
B 0.60 0.08 0.44–0.76
C 0.85 0.05 0.76–0.95
Overall agreement (mean score of 41 items) 0.62 0.04 0.53–0.70
  1. R-AMSTAR, a revised version of Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist, SEM standard error of the mean, CI confidence interval