ArticleHealth science reports2023
The quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses assessing the effects of ankle-foot orthosis on clinical outcomes in stroke patients: A methodological systematic review.
Article in Health science reports, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Given the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers, it is essential to assess them to ensure robust methodology and reliable results before applying them. The purpose of this methodological study was to assess the methodological and reporting quality of recently published SRs and/or meta-analyses (MAs) evaluating the effects of ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) on clinical outcomes in stroke survivors. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, CENTRAL, REHABDATA, and PEDro were searched. The research team applied A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist for evaluating the reporting and methodological quality, respectively, and the ROBIS tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias (RoB) in the included reviews. The quality of the evidence was also judged using the (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) GRADE method. Results: In final, 14 SRs/MAs met inclusion criteria. Evaluation of methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool demonstrated that the overall quality of included reviews was mostly "critically low" or "low," except for two studies that were "high." In addition, the findings showed that the mean score of the reporting quality of the included reviews based on the PRISMA criteria was 24.9, down from 42. In accordance with the overall evaluation applying the ROBIS tool, 14.3% of the review studies were evaluated as high RoB, 64.3% were evaluated as unclear RoB, and 21.4% were evaluated as low RoB. Regarding the level of evidence quality, the GRADE results indicated that the evidence quality of the included reviews was unsatisfactory. Conclusion: This study showed that although the reporting quality of recently published SR/MAs evaluating the clinical effects of AFOs in stroke survivors was moderate, the methodological quality of almost all reviews was suboptimal. Therefore, reviewers must consider a number of criteria in designing, conducting, and reporting their studies to move toward transparent and conclusive results.
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.