- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Insufficient literature searches
- 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 |