Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Properly designed and conducted systematic reviews can reliably produce valid pooled treatment effect estimates and are an important resource for clinical decision-making. However, few studies have looked at the quality of methodology and reporting in systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature.
Objectives: The following paper assesses the quality of methodology and reporting of systematic reviews in orthopaedic research.
Methods: The top five journals in orthopaedic surgery were searched by one individual (PK) over the last 5 years (2006–2010). The journals searched included Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (OC), The Spine Journal (SJ), The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), The American Journal of Sport Medicine (AJSM), and the Journal of Orthopaedic Research (JOR). Only systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included and assessed separately and independently by two individuals (PK and JG). The reporting quality was assessed using the PRISMA statement, and the methodological quality using the AMSTAR guidelines. We calculated the proportions of each item reported within and across journals.
Results: Seventy-six systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. On average for all journals, papers only reported 68% of the PRISMA items. Papers from JBJS had the best reporting and JOR papers had the worst reporting. JBJS fulfilled the highest number of items on average, and JOR fulfilled the lowest number of items. On average papers only fulfilled the methodological quality items from AMSTAR fifty-four percent of the time. The proportion of yes ratings ranged from sixty-one percent (JBJS) to twenty-eight percent (JOR).
Conclusions: Both reporting and methodological quality in the top-five orthopaedic journals was poor with reporting quality being slightly superior. The use of PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines in designing, implementing, and writing systematic reviews is recommended to improve quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in orthopaedic journals.
Objectives: The following paper assesses the quality of methodology and reporting of systematic reviews in orthopaedic research.
Methods: The top five journals in orthopaedic surgery were searched by one individual (PK) over the last 5 years (2006–2010). The journals searched included Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (OC), The Spine Journal (SJ), The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), The American Journal of Sport Medicine (AJSM), and the Journal of Orthopaedic Research (JOR). Only systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included and assessed separately and independently by two individuals (PK and JG). The reporting quality was assessed using the PRISMA statement, and the methodological quality using the AMSTAR guidelines. We calculated the proportions of each item reported within and across journals.
Results: Seventy-six systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. On average for all journals, papers only reported 68% of the PRISMA items. Papers from JBJS had the best reporting and JOR papers had the worst reporting. JBJS fulfilled the highest number of items on average, and JOR fulfilled the lowest number of items. On average papers only fulfilled the methodological quality items from AMSTAR fifty-four percent of the time. The proportion of yes ratings ranged from sixty-one percent (JBJS) to twenty-eight percent (JOR).
Conclusions: Both reporting and methodological quality in the top-five orthopaedic journals was poor with reporting quality being slightly superior. The use of PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines in designing, implementing, and writing systematic reviews is recommended to improve quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in orthopaedic journals.