Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. (October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wasiak, J.; Shen, A. Y.; Ware, R.; O'Donohoe, T. J.; Faggion, C. M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of hand surgery. Volume 42:Number 8(2017:Oct.)
• Page Start: 852
• Page End: 856
• Publication Date: 2017-10
• Subjects: Hand pathology -- wrist pathology -- hand surgery -- plastic surgery -- orthopaedic surgery; 617.575059
• DOI: 10.1177/1753193417712660
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1753-1934

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2016 for relevant studies. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 91 studies were included in the analysis. Most reviews inadequately reported PRISMA items regarding study protocol, search strategy and bias and AMSTAR items regarding protocol, publication bias and funding. Systematic reviews published in a plastics journal, or which included more authors, were associated with higher AMSTAR scores. A large proportion of systematic reviews within hand and wrist pathology literature score poorly with validated methodological assessment tools, which may affect the reliability of their conclusions. Level of evidence: I