Comparison between two tools assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews: ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2

Abstract Several tools are available for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The ReMarQ tool – centred on the assessment of the reporting methodological quality of systematic reviews – comprises 26 dichotomous items and does not require clinical or background knowledge of the review topic for its application. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of evaluating the methodological quality of systematic reviews using ReMarQ and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. We assessed a sample of randomly selected systematic reviews published in medical journals using ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2. We calculated the correlation and agreement between the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ and the number of (i) fulfilled and (ii) fulfilled or partially fulfilled items according to AMSTAR 2. We assessed 51 systematic reviews using both tools. The number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ was strongly correlated with the number of fulfilled items ( = 0.79; 95%CI = 0.65;0.87) and the number of fulfilled or partially fulfilled items ( = 0.85; 95%CI = 0.74;0.90) in AMSTAR 2. The percentage of fulfilled ReMarQ items displayed a high agreement with the percentage of fulfilled or partially fulfilled AMSTAR items. In conclusion, the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ is strongly correlated with that in AMSTAR 2 and there is good agreement between these two tools on the percentage of fulfilled items.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Clinical and Public Health Guidelines
Published
2025-03-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/gin2.70021
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison between two tools assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews: ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2

Paula Perestrelo, Sara Gil‐Mata, Bernardo Sousa‐Pinto, Manuel Marques‐Cruz et al.
Clinical and Public Health Guidelines
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Comparison between two tools assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews: ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2

Paula Perestrelo, Sara Gil‐Mata, Bernardo Sousa‐Pinto, Manuel Marques‐Cruz, Pau Riera‐Serra, A. Chu
article en

Abstract

Abstract Several tools are available for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The ReMarQ tool – centred on the assessment of the reporting methodological quality of systematic reviews – comprises 26 dichotomous items and does not require clinical or background knowledge of the review topic for its application. In this study, we aimed to compare the results of evaluating the methodological quality of systematic reviews using ReMarQ and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2. We assessed a sample of randomly selected systematic reviews published in medical journals using ReMarQ and AMSTAR 2. We calculated the correlation and agreement between the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ and the number of (i) fulfilled and (ii) fulfilled or partially fulfilled items according to AMSTAR 2. We assessed 51 systematic reviews using both tools. The number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ was strongly correlated with the number of fulfilled items ( = 0.79; 95%CI = 0.65;0.87) and the number of fulfilled or partially fulfilled items ( = 0.85; 95%CI = 0.74;0.90) in AMSTAR 2. The percentage of fulfilled ReMarQ items displayed a high agreement with the percentage of fulfilled or partially fulfilled AMSTAR items. In conclusion, the number of fulfilled items in ReMarQ is strongly correlated with that in AMSTAR 2 and there is good agreement between these two tools on the percentage of fulfilled items.

Clinical and Public Health GuidelinesVol. 2(2)
Universidade do Porto (PT), Health Research Institute of the Balearic Islands (ES), Centre for Health Technology and Services Research (PT), McMaster University (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.