ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2019
What Systematic Reviews Exist for the Effectiveness of Orthopaedic Interventions.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Most Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Reporting Clinical Outcomes of the Remplissage Procedure Have at Least 1 Form of Spin.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOrthopaedics procedures are frequent and expensive, but highly cost effective in improving the quality of life. The purpose of this study was to determine the number and topics of systematic overviews on the effectiveness of orthopaedic interventions.
methodsWe performed a review of PubMed, Ovid Embase, Scopus, OrthoEvidence, and the Cochrane Library for dates of publication from January 1, 2006, to February 3, 2017, to identify systematic overviews of randomized clinical trials for the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions involving orthopaedic surgeons. Abstracts were excluded based on the following sequentially applied criteria: (1) the systematic review did not include an intervention for an orthopaedic condition; the intervention was not therapeutic; the intervention was not likely to be applied or influenced by an orthopaedic surgeon; (2) the study was not a systematic review or the study was a single randomized controlled trial, and/or it included nonhuman studies; (3) the systematic review included nonrandomized studies; and (4) the systematic review did not state moderate or strong evidence in support of the study conclusion(s).
resultsOf the 6,864 abstracts found in the searches, 6,145 were excluded yielding 719 systematic overviews. Contrary to conventional wisdom, this study identified 719 reviews of randomized controlled trials of therapeutic orthopaedic interventions. The interventions were classified as surgical in 383 (55%), medication in 245 (34%), and rehabilitation in 42 (6%), and other nonsurgical interventions in 39 (5%). DISCUSSION: This study identified many systematic overviews of orthopaedic interventions. The findings of this study could both influence clinical practice and, given the frequency of orthopaedic procedures, have a major public health impact.
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.