The confidence in the results of physiotherapy systematic reviews in the musculoskeletal field is not increasing over time: a meta-epidemiological study using AMSTAR 2 tool

Ref ID 1014
First Author N. Ferri
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2024
URL https://www-sciencedirect-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0895435624000581?via%3Dihub
Keywords • Physiotherapy
• Low methodological quality
• Musculoskeletal
Problem(s) • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
• Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
• Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
• Insufficient literature searches
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Italy
Checklists • AMSTAR 2
Aim This study aimed to analyze the methodological quality of Systematic Reviews (SRs) of RCTs on the effectiveness of physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions published in the last 10 years and to explore any characteristics associated with SR confidence.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings From 100 included SRs identified through MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and PEDro from December 2012 to December 2022. The confidence in the 100 random sample of included SRs results was critically low in 90% of the studies, and it did not increase over time. Cochrane reviews are predominantly represented in the higher AMSTAR 2 confidence levels. The AMSTAR 2 assessments showed that 93% of the studies did not explain the reason for the eligibility criteria of study designs, 78% did not report the list of the excluded studies and 90% did not check the funding sources of the primary studies; less than 10% of the SRs had a comprehensive search strategy.
Number of systematic reviews included 100
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 475