A systematic review of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery between 2000 and 2016. (October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Manta, A.; Opingari, E.; Simunovic, N.; Duong, A.; Sprague, S.; Peterson, D.; Bhandari, M.
• Is Part Of: Bone & joint journal. Volume 100B:Number 10(2018)
• Page Start: 1270
• Page End: 1274
• Publication Date: 2018-10
• Subjects: Bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Joints -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; 617.47005
• DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.100B10.BJJ-2017-1142.R2
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2049-4394

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: The aims of this systematic review were to describe the quantity and methodological quality of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery published during the last 17 years. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed, between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2016, were searched for meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery dealing with at least one surgical intervention. Meta-analyses were included if the interventions involved a human muscle, ligament, bone or joint. Results: A total of 392 meta-analyses met eligibility criteria, for which the mean AMSTAR quality score was 7.1/11. There was a positive correlation between the year of publication and the quality of the meta-analysis (r = 0.238, p < 0.001). Between 2000 and 2011, the mean AMSTAR score corresponded to that of a medium quality review. However, between 2012 and 2016, the mean scores have been consistently equivalent to those of a high-quality review. The number of meta-analyses published increased 10-fold between 2005 and 2014. Conclusion: The quantity and quality of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery which have been published has increased, reaching a plateau in 2012. Methodological flaws remain to be addressed in future meta-analyses in order to continue increasing the quality of the orthopaedic literature. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1270–4.