Quality assessment of systematic reviews of surgical treatment of cervical spine degenerative diseases: an overview

OBJECTIVE: To gather all systematic reviews of surgical treatment of degenerative cervical diseases and assess their quality, conclusions and outcomes. METHODS: A literature search for systematic reviews of surgical treatment of degenerative cervical diseases was conducted. Studies should have at least one surgical procedure as an intervention. Included studies were assessed for quality through Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) questionnaires. Quality of studies was rated accordingly to their final score as very poor (<30%), poor (30%-50%), fair (50%-70%), good (70%-90%), and excellent (>90%). If an article reported a conclusion addressing its primary objective with supportive statistical evidence for it, they were deemed to have an evidence-based conclusion. RESULTS: A total of 65 systematic reviews were included. According to AMSTAR and PRISMA, 1.5% to 6.2% of studies were rated as excellent, while good studies counted for 21.5% to 47.7%. According to AMSTAR, most studies were of fair quality (46.2%), and 6.2% of very poor quality. Mean PRISMA score was 70.2%, meaning studies of good quality. For both tools, performing a meta-analysis significantly increased studies scores and quality. Cervical spondylosis studies reached highest scores among diseases analyzed. Authors stated conclusions for interventions compared in 70.7% of studies, and only two of them were not supported by statistical evidence. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of surgical treatment of cervical degenerative diseases present “fair” to “good” quality in their majority, and most of the reported conclusions are supported by statistical evidence. Including a meta-analysis significantly increases the quality of a systematic review.