Efficacy and safety of ozone therapy for knee osteoarthritis: an umbrella review of systematic reviews

Ref ID 1036
First Author V. T. S. Lino
Journal FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2024
URL https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2024.1348028/full
Keywords • Low methodological quality
• Musculoskeletal
Problem(s) • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
• Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
• Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
• Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
• Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
• Insufficient literature searches
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Brazil
Checklists • AMSTAR 2
Aim To summarize the evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) on the efficacy and safety of ozone therapy in knee osteoarthritis indexed across MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Elsevier), Cochrane Central, Virtual Health Library, and Dialnet.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings From 8 included systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of ozone therapy in knee osteoarthritis indexed across MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Elsevier), Cochrane Central, Virtual Health Library, and Dialnet. AMSTAR 2 assessments of the 8 included SRs on the efficacy and safety of ozone therapy in knee osteoarthritis indexed across MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Elsevier), Cochrane Central, Virtual Health Library, and Dialnet showed that the overall confidence in the results of all eight studies was critically low. None of the reviews explained their selection of the study designs for inclusion, provided a list of excluded studies, or reported on the sources of funding of studies. Half of the reviews did not use a comprehensive search strategy, nor accounted for risk of bias in the individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review.
Number of systematic reviews included 8
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 138
Treatment impacted Not Applicable
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description