Methodological quality of systematic reviews on interventions for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study

Ref ID 108
First Author I. X. Y. Wu
Journal THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE
Year Of Publishing 2020
URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1759720X20959967
Keywords Cochrane
Protocols
Risk of bias
Rheumatology
Low reporting quality
Searching
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) No registered or published protocol
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Flawed risk of bias undertaken
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Insufficient literature searches
Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
Number of systematic reviews included 167
Summary of Findings Only seven (4.2%) of the included 167 systematic reviews of interventions for osteoarthritis had high methodological quality according to AMSTAR 2. Respectively, eight (4.8%), 25 (15.0%), and 127 (76.0%) systematic reviews had moderate, low, and critically low quality. The main methodological weaknesses were: only 16.8% registered protocol a priori, 4.2% searched literature comprehensively, 25.7% included lists of excluded studies with justifications, and 30.5% assessed risk of bias appropriately by considering allocation concealment, blinding of patients and assessors, random sequence generation and selective reported outcomes. Cochrane reviews [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 251.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 35.5–1782.6], being updates of previous SRs (AOR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1–13.7), and SRs published after 2017 (AOR 7.7, 95% CI 2.8–21.5) were positively related to higher methodological quality.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes