Cargando…

Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment

OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the quality of published systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in tendinopathy with regard to handling and reporting of results with special emphasis on strength of evidence assessment. DATA SOURCES: Medline from inception to June 2020. STU...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Challoumas, Dimitris, Millar, Neal L
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7907875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33692904
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000920
_version_ 1783655585475985408
author Challoumas, Dimitris
Millar, Neal L
author_facet Challoumas, Dimitris
Millar, Neal L
author_sort Challoumas, Dimitris
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the quality of published systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in tendinopathy with regard to handling and reporting of results with special emphasis on strength of evidence assessment. DATA SOURCES: Medline from inception to June 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: All SRs of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of any intervention(s) on any location of tendinopathy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Included SRs were appraised with the use of a 12-item tool devised by the authors arising from the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and other relevant guidance. Subgroup analyses were performed based on impact factor (IF) of publishing journals and date of publication. RESULTS: A total of 57 SRs were included published in 38 journals between 2006 and 2020. The most commonly used risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment tool and strength of evidence assessment tool were the Cochrane Collaboration RoB tool and the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group tool, respectively. The mean score on the appraisal tool was 46.5% (range 0%–100%). SRs published in higher IF journals (>4.7) were associated with a higher mean score than those in lower IF journals (mean difference 26.4%±8.8%, p=0.004). The mean score of the 10 most recently published SRs was similar to that of the first 10 published SRs (mean difference 8.3%±13.7%, p=0.54). Only 23 SRs (40%) used the results of their RoB assessment in data synthesis and more than half (n=30; 50%) did not assess the strength of evidence of their results. Only 12 SRs (21%) assessed their strength of evidence appropriately. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the poor presentation of evidence identified by our review, we provide recommendations to increase transparency and reproducibility in future SRs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7907875
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79078752021-03-09 Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment Challoumas, Dimitris Millar, Neal L BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Review OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the quality of published systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in tendinopathy with regard to handling and reporting of results with special emphasis on strength of evidence assessment. DATA SOURCES: Medline from inception to June 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: All SRs of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of any intervention(s) on any location of tendinopathy. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Included SRs were appraised with the use of a 12-item tool devised by the authors arising from the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and other relevant guidance. Subgroup analyses were performed based on impact factor (IF) of publishing journals and date of publication. RESULTS: A total of 57 SRs were included published in 38 journals between 2006 and 2020. The most commonly used risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment tool and strength of evidence assessment tool were the Cochrane Collaboration RoB tool and the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group tool, respectively. The mean score on the appraisal tool was 46.5% (range 0%–100%). SRs published in higher IF journals (>4.7) were associated with a higher mean score than those in lower IF journals (mean difference 26.4%±8.8%, p=0.004). The mean score of the 10 most recently published SRs was similar to that of the first 10 published SRs (mean difference 8.3%±13.7%, p=0.54). Only 23 SRs (40%) used the results of their RoB assessment in data synthesis and more than half (n=30; 50%) did not assess the strength of evidence of their results. Only 12 SRs (21%) assessed their strength of evidence appropriately. CONCLUSIONS: In light of the poor presentation of evidence identified by our review, we provide recommendations to increase transparency and reproducibility in future SRs. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-02-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7907875/ /pubmed/33692904 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000920 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Review
Challoumas, Dimitris
Millar, Neal L
Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment
title Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment
title_full Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment
title_fullStr Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment
title_full_unstemmed Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment
title_short Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment
title_sort do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? a critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7907875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33692904
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2020-000920
work_keys_str_mv AT challoumasdimitris doweneedtoimprovethereportingofevidenceintendinopathymanagementacriticalappraisalofsystematicreviewswithrecommendationsonstrengthofevidenceassessment
AT millarneall doweneedtoimprovethereportingofevidenceintendinopathymanagementacriticalappraisalofsystematicreviewswithrecommendationsonstrengthofevidenceassessment