Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix F: AMSTAR 2 Tool
Appendix F: AMSTAR 2 Tool
Pages 271-276
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 271... ...
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? • Partial: Protocol included "just" (1)
|
From page 272... ...
• Yes: Double independent with reconciliation process OR Single with review by experienced systematic reviewer • No: Less stringent method used ºW e gave researchers the benefit of the doubt regarding their system atic review experience.
|
From page 273... ...
• Yes: Used a standard risk-of-bias tool (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials, ROBINS-I for nonrandom ized studies) or equivalent tool that addresses relevant issues related to randomization/allocation concealment, confounding bias, selection bias, outcome ascertainment, analytic method º This framework is based on the concepts described by AMSTAR 2.
|
From page 274... ...
Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? • Yes • No OVERALL "QUALITY" The system for determining the quality, or methodological adequacy, of the systematic reviews was constructed by the committee based on concepts and terminology from AMSTAR 2.
|
From page 275... ...
Not well-done/reported systematic reviews Studies were downgraded to Not well-done/reported if • (1) Inadequate reporting of PICO [No]
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.