Cargando…

Declining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review

PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality and characteristics of systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, in the clinical orthopaedic sports medicine literature from 2015 to 2019 and to compare the results to previous findings from a similar analysis from 2009 to 2013. METHODS: All clinical orthopaedic s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Donghoon, Paul, Ryan, Lencer, Adam, Tjoumakaris, Fotios P., Freedman, Kevin B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9706954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36457822
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2021.11.013
_version_ 1784840612611096576
author Lee, Donghoon
Paul, Ryan
Lencer, Adam
Tjoumakaris, Fotios P.
Freedman, Kevin B.
author_facet Lee, Donghoon
Paul, Ryan
Lencer, Adam
Tjoumakaris, Fotios P.
Freedman, Kevin B.
author_sort Lee, Donghoon
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality and characteristics of systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, in the clinical orthopaedic sports medicine literature from 2015 to 2019 and to compare the results to previous findings from a similar analysis from 2009 to 2013. METHODS: All clinical orthopaedic sports medicine and meta-analyses published from 2015 to 2019 published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, and Sports Health were reviewed. These were evaluated according to guidelines from Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. Results were compared to the quality of publications from 2009 to 2013. RESULTS: A total of 516 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this study. Of these, 17.1% of studies included Level I or II evidence only, whereas 79.1% included Level IV or V studies. When compared to the previous study from 2009 to 2013, which demonstrated 32% of Level I or II evidence studies and 53% Level IV or V, there was a significant decrease in the level of evidence in the more recent study period (P < .001). The average Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scores were 81% and the average Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scores 56%, which are declines from 87% and 73%, respectively (P < .001, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a significant increase in the volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthopaedic sports medicine. This has coincided with significant declines in the level of evidence, as well as declines in methodologic and reporting quality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians increasingly use systematic reviews to drive their treatment decisions. Therefore, the quality of systematic reviews in orthopaedic sports medicine merits assessment.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9706954
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97069542022-11-30 Declining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review Lee, Donghoon Paul, Ryan Lencer, Adam Tjoumakaris, Fotios P. Freedman, Kevin B. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Systematic Review PURPOSE: To evaluate the quality and characteristics of systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, in the clinical orthopaedic sports medicine literature from 2015 to 2019 and to compare the results to previous findings from a similar analysis from 2009 to 2013. METHODS: All clinical orthopaedic sports medicine and meta-analyses published from 2015 to 2019 published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, and Sports Health were reviewed. These were evaluated according to guidelines from Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. Results were compared to the quality of publications from 2009 to 2013. RESULTS: A total of 516 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this study. Of these, 17.1% of studies included Level I or II evidence only, whereas 79.1% included Level IV or V studies. When compared to the previous study from 2009 to 2013, which demonstrated 32% of Level I or II evidence studies and 53% Level IV or V, there was a significant decrease in the level of evidence in the more recent study period (P < .001). The average Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scores were 81% and the average Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scores 56%, which are declines from 87% and 73%, respectively (P < .001, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There has been a significant increase in the volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthopaedic sports medicine. This has coincided with significant declines in the level of evidence, as well as declines in methodologic and reporting quality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians increasingly use systematic reviews to drive their treatment decisions. Therefore, the quality of systematic reviews in orthopaedic sports medicine merits assessment. Elsevier 2022-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9706954/ /pubmed/36457822 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2021.11.013 Text en © 2021 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Lee, Donghoon
Paul, Ryan
Lencer, Adam
Tjoumakaris, Fotios P.
Freedman, Kevin B.
Declining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review
title Declining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review
title_full Declining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review
title_fullStr Declining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Declining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review
title_short Declining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review
title_sort declining quality of systematic reviews in orthopaedic sports medicine: an updated systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9706954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36457822
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2021.11.013
work_keys_str_mv AT leedonghoon decliningqualityofsystematicreviewsinorthopaedicsportsmedicineanupdatedsystematicreview
AT paulryan decliningqualityofsystematicreviewsinorthopaedicsportsmedicineanupdatedsystematicreview
AT lenceradam decliningqualityofsystematicreviewsinorthopaedicsportsmedicineanupdatedsystematicreview
AT tjoumakarisfotiosp decliningqualityofsystematicreviewsinorthopaedicsportsmedicineanupdatedsystematicreview
AT freedmankevinb decliningqualityofsystematicreviewsinorthopaedicsportsmedicineanupdatedsystematicreview