U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Chao YS, Clark M, Carson E, et al. HPV Testing for Primary Cervical Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2019 Mar. (CADTH Optimal Use Report, No. 7.1b.)

Cover of HPV Testing for Primary Cervical Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment

HPV Testing for Primary Cervical Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment [Internet].

Show details

Appendix 6Strengths and Limitations of Systematic Reviews

Table 41AMSTAR 2 Checklist

AMSTAR 2 Item36Melnikow (2018)41HIQA (2017)5Cochrane (2017)40Verdoodt (2015)20
Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?⊕a⊕⊕⊕
Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?b⊕X⊕X
Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?⊕a⊕⊕⊕
Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?b⊕⊕⊕⊕
Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?⊕⊕⊕?
Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?⊕⊕⊕⊕
Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?b⊕a⊕⊕X
Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?⊕a⊕⊕⊕
Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?b⊕⊕⊕⊕
Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?XXXX
If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?bNA⊕⊕⊕
If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?NAXXX
Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?b⊕XXX
Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?⊕X⊕⊕
If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?bNAXXX
Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?⊕⊕⊕⊕

⊕ = yes; X = no; AMSTAR = A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; HIQA = Health Information and Quality Authority; NA = not applicable; PICO = population, intervention, comparator, and outcome; RoB = risk of bias.

a

Available in the supplemental materials.65

b

AMSTAR 2 critical domains.

Copyright © 2019 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health.

The copyright and other intellectual property rights in this document are owned by CADTH and its licensors. These rights are protected by the Canadian Copyright Act and other national and international laws and agreements. Users are permitted to make copies of this document for non-commercial purposes only, provided it is not modified when reproduced and appropriate credit is given to CADTH and its licensors.

Except where otherwise noted, this work is distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Bookshelf ID: NBK543098
Contents

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (8.2M)

Other titles in this collection

Recent Activity

ClearTurn OffTurn On

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...