ArticleGlobal spine journal2020
Critically Low Confidence in the Results Produced by Spine Surgery Systematic Reviews: An AMSTAR-2 Evaluation From 4 Spine Journals.
Article in Global spine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The presence of spin is commonly found in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in behaviour analysis journals: An umbrella review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Clozapine prescribing barriers in the management of treatment-resistant schizophrenia: A systematic review.Medicine · 2021Pooled it
- An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture for Infertile Women UndergoingFrontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes of bowel preparation education strategies in colonoscopy: An evidence map of systematic reviews.Medicine · 2025Article
- Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- An Overview of the Methodology Used to Develop Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Acute and Intraoperative Spinal Cord Injury.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Can Communication Technologies Reduce Loneliness and Social Isolation in Older People? A Scoping Review of Reviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Systematic reviews and meta-analysis published in indexed Portuguese medical journals: time trends and critical appraisal.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Improving the Quality of Systematic Reviews in Spinal Surgery Requires Community-Wide Engagement and Pragmatism.Global spine journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA systematic cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews (SRs).
objectiveTo evaluate the methodological quality of spine surgery SRs published in 2018 using the updated AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal instrument.
methodsWe identified the PubMed indexed journals devoted to spine surgery research in 2018. All SRs of spine surgical interventions from those journals were critically appraised for quality independently by 2 reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 instrument. We calculated the percentage of SRs achieving a positive response for each AMSTAR 2 domain item and assessed the levels of confidence in the results of each SR.
resultsWe identified 28 SRs from 4 journals that met our criteria for inclusion. Only 49.5% of the AMSTAR 2 domain items satisfied the AMSTAR 2 criteria. Critical domain items were satisfied less often (39.1%) compared with noncritical domain items (57.3%). Domain items most poorly reported include accounting for individual study risk of bias when interpreting results (14%), list and justification of excluded articles (18%), and an a priori establishment of methods prior to the review or registered protocol (18%). The overall confidence in the results was rated "low" in 2 SRs and "critically low" in 26.
conclusionsThe credibility of a SR and its value to clinicians and policy makers are dependent on its methodological quality. This appraisal found significant methodological limitations in several critical domains, such that the confidence in the findings of these reviews is "critically low."
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.