Reviewhybrid2024

Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews of comparative studies in autograft‐based anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the AMSTAR‐2 tool: A systematic umbrella review

Praveen Sritharan · Vincent Milantoni · Hassaan Abdel Khalik · Jeffrey Kay · David Slawaska‐Eng · Jansen Johnson +1 more

6 citations0/0 files storedKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Knee injuries and reconstruction techniques

Abstract

PURPOSE: There remains a lack of consensus around autograft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), though there is a large body of overlapping systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic reviews and their methodological quality were aimed to be further assessed, using a validated tool known as assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR-2). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 23 April 2023 for systematic reviews (with/without meta-analysis) comparing primary ACLR autografts. A final quality rating from AMSTAR-2 was provided for each study ('critically low', 'low', 'moderate' or 'high' quality). Correlational analyses were conducted for ratings in relation to study characteristics. RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and ninety-eight studies were screened, and 50 studies were ultimately included. Twenty-four studies (48%) were rated as 'critically low', 17 (34%) as 'low', seven (14%) as 'moderate' and two (4%) as 'high' quality. The least followed domains were reporting on sources of funding (1/50 studies), the impact of risk of bias on results of meta-analyses (11/36 studies) and publication bias (17/36 studies). There was a significant increase in the frequency of studies graded as 'moderate' compared to 'low' or 'critically low' quality over time (p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing autografts in ACLR is low, with many studies being rated lower due to commonly absent aspects of systematic review methodology such as investigating sources of funding and publication bias. More recent studies were generally more likely to be of higher quality. Authors are advised to consult AMSTAR-2 prior to conducting systematic reviews in ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both 2000Publication bias in meta-analysis its causes and consequences 2016Publication Bias: The Elephant in the Review 2013Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in the Orthopaedic Literature 2018Reviews Pooling Heterogeneous, Low‐Evidence, High‐Bias Data Result in Incorrect Conclusions: But Heterogeneity is an Opportunity to Explore 2022AMSTAR 2 appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of heart failure from high-impact journals

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.