Quality analysis of prior systematic reviews of carpal tunnel syndrome: an overview of the literature

Ref ID 852
First Author M.C. Cavalcante
Journal SAO PAULO MEDICAL JOURNAL
Year Of Publishing 2022
URL https://www.scielo.br/j/spmj/a/xT38SgKYn7SF3ZS8KWNvhmt/?lang=en
Keywords Musculoskeletal
Low reporting quality
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included 55
Summary of Findings From 55 included systematic reviews investigating the treatment of CTS in adults indexed across MEDLINE and Cochrane Library database from January 1950 to February 2020 in Mandarin language. More than 76% of the analysed studies were “low” or “very low” methodological quality (AMSTAR). PRISMA scores were higher when meta-analysis was present (15.61 versus 10.40; P = 0.008), while AMSTAR scores were higher when studies performed meta-analysis (8.43 versus 5.59; P = 0.009) or when they included randomized controlled trials (7.95 versus 6.06; P = 0.043).
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