Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33014149›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease2020

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on interventions for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study.

Irene Xy Wu, Huan Wang, Lin Zhu, Yancong Chen, Charlene Hl Wong, Chen Mao, Vincent Ch Chung

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Irene Xy WuXiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3772-2376
Huan WangXiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Lin ZhuJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China.
Yancong ChenXiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Charlene Hl WongJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Rm 509, 5/F, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, Hong Kong 999077, Hong Kong.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2623-5855
Chen MaoDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Vincent Ch ChungJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China.
Central South University · CNChinese University of Hong Kong · HKSouthern Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare providers need reliable evidence for supporting the adoption of new interventions, of which the source of evidence often originates from systematic reviews (SRs). However, little assessment on the rigor of SRs related to osteoarthritis interventions has been conducted. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and predictors among SRs on osteoarthritis interventions.

methodsFour electronic databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO) were searched, from 1 January 2008 to 10 October 2019. An SR was eligible if it focused on osteoarthritis interventions, and we performed at least one meta-analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR 2 instrument. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to assess predictors of methodological quality.

resultsIn total, 167 SRs were included. The most SRs were non-Cochrane reviews (88.6%), and 54.5% investigated non-pharmacological interventions. Only seven (4.2%) had high methodological quality. Respectively, eight (4.8%), 25 (15.0%), and 127 (76.0%) SRs had moderate, low, and critically low quality. Main methodological weaknesses were as follows: only 16.8% registered protocol

conclusionDespite signs of improvement in recent years, most of the SRs on osteoarthritis interventions have critically low methodological quality, especially among non-Cochrane reviews. Future SRs should be improved by conducting comprehensive literature search, justifying excluded studies, publishing a protocol, and assessing the risk of bias of included studies appropriately.

Indexed as

AMSTAR 2cross-sectional studymeta-analysismethodological qualityosteoarthritissystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID33014149
PMCPMC7518002
OpenAlexW3088468720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.