ArticleJournal of chiropractic medicine2024
Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Evaluating Effects of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy on Tendinopathies: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of chiropractic medicine, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the published systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) that looked at the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on tendinopathies and to summarize its effectiveness. Methods: A search of PubMed, Scopus, PEDro, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and REHABDATA was conducted. SRs/MAs that assessed the effectiveness of ESWT for treating tendinopathy were included. The methodological and reporting quality of the eligible SRs/MAs were assessed using AMSTAR-2 and the PRISMA checklist. In addition, the ROBIS tool was applied to evaluate the risk of bias (RoB). Results: Eighteen SRs/MAs were included. The overall methodological quality was "critically low." Furthermore, the reporting quality of the included reviews according to PRISMA criteria was not optimal. Based on the ROBIS, a total of 16.2% of the studies had a low RoB, 38.9% had an unclear RoB, and 44.4% of the studies were appraised as having a high RoB. Conclusion: In this scoping review we found substantial limitations regarding the quality and RoB of SRs/MAs. Therefore, reviewers must consider the AMSTAR-2, PRISMA, and ROBIS tools to improve the quality of future studies.
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.