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	• Rheumatology • Searching • Low reporting quality • Protocols • Cochrane • Non-Cochrane reviews • Risk of bias
Problem(s)	• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • 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
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes