ReviewClinical orthopaedics and related research2009
A systematic review of conflicting meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery.
Review in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic reviews in spinal cord injury: A step-by-step guide for rehabilitation science learners and clinicians.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2013Pooled it
- Treating anterior cruciate ligament tears in skeletally immature patients.Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2011Pooled it
- Does autograft choice determine intermediate-term outcome of ACL reconstruction?Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2011Pooled it
- Does minimally invasive surgery improve short-term recovery in total knee arthroplasty?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2010Pooled it
- Article
- Implementing living evidence to inform health decisions: A strategy for building capacity in health sector (Protocol).Open research Europe · 2021Article
- Complications and cancer rates in spine fusion with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2016Article
- A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on the Topic of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2016Article
- [Injection treatment with hyaluronic acid].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2015Review
- Rationale for and methods of superiority, noninferiority, or equivalence designs in orthopaedic, controlled trials.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Meta-analyses are important evaluations in orthopaedic surgery, not only to create clinical guidelines, but also because their findings are included in public health and health policy decision making. However, with increasing numbers of meta-analyses, discordant and frankly conflicting conclusions have been reported. We searched for conflicting meta-analyses, ie, those arriving at different conclusions despite following the same research question, identified potential reasons for these differences, and assessed the statistical significance and clinical importance of differences. We identified conflicting meta-analyses on graft choice in ACL reconstruction and the use of hyaluronic acid. We found significant differences in individual results only for meta-analyses on hyaluronic acid, but the 95% confidence intervals of the magnitude of differences included values as much as 40% for ACL meta-analyses. However, our findings suggest most conflicts derive from differences in the interpretation of pooled results rather than in the actual results. Thus conclusions and interpretations from meta-analyses should be scrutinized as critically as those from any other type of study and subjected to reassessment if deemed necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.