SynthesisSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2022
Quality analysis of prior systematic reviews of carpal tunnel syndrome: an overview of the literature.
Synthesis in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07134361 (Clinical Analysis and Ultrasound Evaluation of the Median Nerve Cross-sectional Area Before and After Carpal Tunnel Release), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Clinical Analysis and Ultrasound Evaluation of the Median Nerve Cross-sectional Area Before and After Carpal Tunnel Release
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common condition greatly affects patients' quality of life and ability to work. Systematic reviews provide useful information for treatment and health decisions.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the methodological quality of previously published systematic reviews on the treatment of CTS. DESIGN AND
settingOverview of systematic reviews conducted at the Brazilian public higher education institution, São Paulo, Brazil.
methodsWe searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library database for systematic reviews investigating the treatment of CTS in adults. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) were applied by two independent examiners.
resultsFifty-five studies were included. Considering the stratification within the AMSTAR measurement tool, we found that more than 76% of the analyzed studies were "low" or "very low". PRISMA scores were higher when meta-analysis was present (15.61 versus 10.40; P = 0.008), while AMSTAR scores were higher when studies performed meta-analysis (8.43 versus 5.59; P = 0.009) or when they included randomized controlled trials (7.95 versus 6.06; P = 0.043). The intra-observer correlation demonstrated perfect agreement (> 0.8), a Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.829, and an ICC of0.857. The inter-observer correlation indicated that AMSTAR was more reliable than PRISMA.
conclusionOverall, systematic reviews of the treatment of CTS are of poor quality. Reviews with better-quality conducted meta-analysis and included randomized controlled trials. AMSTAR is a better tool than PRISMA because it has a better performance and should be recommended in future studies. REGISTRATION NUMBER IN PROSPERO: CRD42020172328 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172328).
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.