Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature

Ref ID 653
First Author J. J. Gagnier
Journal JBJS
Year Of Publishing 2013
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23780547/
Keywords • Orthopaedic
• Grey literature
• Protocols
• Statistical
• Expertise
• Publication bias
• Low reporting quality
• Low methodological quality
• Single reviewer
• Risk of bias
Problem(s) • No registered or published protocol
• Grey literature excluded
• Single reviewer / lack of double checking
• Poor consideration of publication bias
• Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data
• Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
• Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country United States
Checklists • PRISMA 2009
• AMSTAR 1
Aim To examine the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews across five orthopaedic journals
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings Both reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the top five orthopaedic journals were poor
Number of systematic reviews included 76
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 76
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted No
Interpretation impacted description