Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: systematic reviews are considered the highest level of scientific evidence, based on the synthesis of data from primary studies. This type of study guides health professionals to practice based on evidence.
Objective: to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews for the treatment of individuals with rotator cuff dysfunction; to compare using AMSTAR, the quality of studies found in the Cochrane Library, PubMed (Publisher MEDLINE), Embase and Qinsight databases.
Methods: this was a descriptive and comparative cross-sectional study in which two independent authors analyzed the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews on treatment for individuals with a diagnosis of rotator cuff dysfunction using the AMSTAR instrument.
Results: we evaluated 76 systematic reviews using the AMSTAR instrument, the overall mean score was 6.1 and the mean per database was 9.1 for the Cochrane Reviews and 5.7 for the non-Cochrane. The lowest AMSTAR score item was 11, related to the exhibition of conflicts of interest of the publication. In a comparative analysis of the final variable score, there was a statistical difference between the Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
Conclusion: according to this study, systematic reviews using Cochrane methodology have a better methodological quality compared to non-Cochrane studies on the treatment of rotator cuff dysfunctions.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: by reason that patients and health professionals use systematic reviews to help in their decision making, and even though systematic reviews are not free of bias, it is important to be alert concerning the quality of systematic reviews.
Objective: to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews for the treatment of individuals with rotator cuff dysfunction; to compare using AMSTAR, the quality of studies found in the Cochrane Library, PubMed (Publisher MEDLINE), Embase and Qinsight databases.
Methods: this was a descriptive and comparative cross-sectional study in which two independent authors analyzed the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews on treatment for individuals with a diagnosis of rotator cuff dysfunction using the AMSTAR instrument.
Results: we evaluated 76 systematic reviews using the AMSTAR instrument, the overall mean score was 6.1 and the mean per database was 9.1 for the Cochrane Reviews and 5.7 for the non-Cochrane. The lowest AMSTAR score item was 11, related to the exhibition of conflicts of interest of the publication. In a comparative analysis of the final variable score, there was a statistical difference between the Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
Conclusion: according to this study, systematic reviews using Cochrane methodology have a better methodological quality compared to non-Cochrane studies on the treatment of rotator cuff dysfunctions.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: by reason that patients and health professionals use systematic reviews to help in their decision making, and even though systematic reviews are not free of bias, it is important to be alert concerning the quality of systematic reviews.
PDF