ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2022
Declining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of 'spin' in the abstracts of systematic reviews in leading orthopaedic surgery journals over the past 10 years: a cross-sectional methodological study.EFORT open reviews · 2026Article
- The Sport Publication Observational Research Tool (SPORT): An Objective Tool to Score the Methodological Quality of Observational Clinical Sports Medicine Research.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of "Spin" in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews in Leading Arthroplasty Journals Over the Past 10 Years: A Cross-Sectional Methodological Study.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the quality and characteristics of systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, in the clinical orthopaedic sports medicine literature from 2015 to 2019 and to compare the results to previous findings from a similar analysis from 2009 to 2013. Methods: All clinical orthopaedic sports medicine and meta-analyses published from 2015 to 2019 published in Results: A total of 516 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this study. Of these, 17.1% of studies included Level I or II evidence only, whereas 79.1% included Level IV or V studies. When compared to the previous study from 2009 to 2013, which demonstrated 32% of Level I or II evidence studies and 53% Level IV or V, there was a significant decrease in the level of evidence in the more recent study period ( Conclusions: There has been a significant increase in the volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthopaedic sports medicine. This has coincided with significant declines in the level of evidence, as well as declines in methodologic and reporting quality. Clinical Relevance: Clinicians increasingly use systematic reviews to drive their treatment decisions. Therefore, the quality of systematic reviews in orthopaedic sports medicine merits assessment.
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.