Cargando…

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of systematic reviews (SRs) on total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been published in recent years, but their quality has been unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs on TKA and THA. METHODS: We...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wu, Xinyu, Sun, Huan, Zhou, Xiaoqin, Wang, Ji, Li, Jing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5857117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29548276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0488-8
_version_ 1783307416081793024
author Wu, Xinyu
Sun, Huan
Zhou, Xiaoqin
Wang, Ji
Li, Jing
author_facet Wu, Xinyu
Sun, Huan
Zhou, Xiaoqin
Wang, Ji
Li, Jing
author_sort Wu, Xinyu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of systematic reviews (SRs) on total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been published in recent years, but their quality has been unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs on TKA and THA. METHODS: We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Databases (including HTA, DARE, and CDSR), CBM, CNKI, Wang Fang, and VIP, from January 2014 to December 2015 for THA and TKA. The quality of SRs was assessed using the modified 25-item “Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews” (mod-AMSTAR) tool, which was based on the AMSTAR scale. A T-test, nonparametric test, and linear regression were conducted to assess the relationship between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality. RESULTS: Sixty-three SRs were included, from which the majority of SRs (50, 79.4%) were conducted in Asia. Only 4 reviews were rated as high quality, and most were weak in providing a priori design (6, 9.5%), not limiting the publication type (8, 13%), providing an excluded primary studies list (4, 6.3%) and reporting support for the included primary studies (1, 1.6%). Reviews published in English journals performed better than did Chinese journals in duplicate data extraction (81.3% vs 46.7%, p = 0.017; 70.8% vs 33.3%, p = 0.009) and providing source of support for the SR (87.5% vs 33.3%, P < 0.001). Reviews published in journals with a higher impact factor were associated with a higher mod-AMSTAR score (regression coefficient: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.11–0.65; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of the included SRs is far from satisfactory. Authors of SRs should conform to the recommendations outlined in the mod-AMSTAR items. Areas needing improvement were providing a priori design, not limiting the publication type, providing an excluded primary studies list, and reporting conflicts of interest. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0488-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5857117
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58571172018-03-22 Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR Wu, Xinyu Sun, Huan Zhou, Xiaoqin Wang, Ji Li, Jing BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of systematic reviews (SRs) on total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been published in recent years, but their quality has been unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs on TKA and THA. METHODS: We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Databases (including HTA, DARE, and CDSR), CBM, CNKI, Wang Fang, and VIP, from January 2014 to December 2015 for THA and TKA. The quality of SRs was assessed using the modified 25-item “Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews” (mod-AMSTAR) tool, which was based on the AMSTAR scale. A T-test, nonparametric test, and linear regression were conducted to assess the relationship between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality. RESULTS: Sixty-three SRs were included, from which the majority of SRs (50, 79.4%) were conducted in Asia. Only 4 reviews were rated as high quality, and most were weak in providing a priori design (6, 9.5%), not limiting the publication type (8, 13%), providing an excluded primary studies list (4, 6.3%) and reporting support for the included primary studies (1, 1.6%). Reviews published in English journals performed better than did Chinese journals in duplicate data extraction (81.3% vs 46.7%, p = 0.017; 70.8% vs 33.3%, p = 0.009) and providing source of support for the SR (87.5% vs 33.3%, P < 0.001). Reviews published in journals with a higher impact factor were associated with a higher mod-AMSTAR score (regression coefficient: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.11–0.65; P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of the included SRs is far from satisfactory. Authors of SRs should conform to the recommendations outlined in the mod-AMSTAR items. Areas needing improvement were providing a priori design, not limiting the publication type, providing an excluded primary studies list, and reporting conflicts of interest. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-018-0488-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5857117/ /pubmed/29548276 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0488-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wu, Xinyu
Sun, Huan
Zhou, Xiaoqin
Wang, Ji
Li, Jing
Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR
title Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR
title_full Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR
title_fullStr Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR
title_full_unstemmed Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR
title_short Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR
title_sort quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-amstar
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5857117/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29548276
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0488-8
work_keys_str_mv AT wuxinyu qualityassessmentofsystematicreviewsontotalhiporkneearthroplastyusingmodamstar
AT sunhuan qualityassessmentofsystematicreviewsontotalhiporkneearthroplastyusingmodamstar
AT zhouxiaoqin qualityassessmentofsystematicreviewsontotalhiporkneearthroplastyusingmodamstar
AT wangji qualityassessmentofsystematicreviewsontotalhiporkneearthroplastyusingmodamstar
AT lijing qualityassessmentofsystematicreviewsontotalhiporkneearthroplastyusingmodamstar