Most Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Reporting Clinical Outcomes of the Remplissage Procedure Have at Least 1 Form of Spin

Q3 Medicine
{"title":"Most Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Reporting Clinical Outcomes of the Remplissage Procedure Have at Least 1 Form of Spin","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To determine the prevalence of spin in systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses of clinical studies of the remplissage procedure.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Two reviewers independently performed a literature search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases using the search term “remplissage” in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The full article of each included SR was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin. Methodologic quality was assessed using the second version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 15 SRs (8 accompanied by meta-analyses; 6 Level III and 9 Level IV) were included. Overall, 13 SRs (86.7%) contained at least 1 form of spin, with 33 unique instances of spin recorded; the mean frequency was 2.2 ± 1.3 (range, 0-4). The most prevalent form of spin, present in 11 studies (73%), was type 9 (“conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias”). There were 14 uses of spin classified as misleading reporting, 16 classified as misleading interpretation, and 3 classified as inappropriate extrapolation. The mean 5-year impact factor of the publishing journals was 4.4 ± 0.9 (range, 0-6.1), the mean number of citations per SR was 33.3 ± 24.9 (range, 0-55), and the mean number of citations per month since publication was 0.68 ± 0.44 (range, 0-1.48). According to the AMSTAR 2 assessment, confidence in the results of the SRs was rated as critically low for 20% of reviews, low for 33.3%, and moderate for 46.7%.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Most SRs of the remplissage procedure are affected by the presence of spin. Favorable reporting was observed in the absence of definite findings, as was minimization of drawbacks for certain populations.</div></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><div>Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34631,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X24000968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the prevalence of spin in systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses of clinical studies of the remplissage procedure.

Methods

Two reviewers independently performed a literature search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases using the search term “remplissage” in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The full article of each included SR was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin. Methodologic quality was assessed using the second version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2).

Results

A total of 15 SRs (8 accompanied by meta-analyses; 6 Level III and 9 Level IV) were included. Overall, 13 SRs (86.7%) contained at least 1 form of spin, with 33 unique instances of spin recorded; the mean frequency was 2.2 ± 1.3 (range, 0-4). The most prevalent form of spin, present in 11 studies (73%), was type 9 (“conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias”). There were 14 uses of spin classified as misleading reporting, 16 classified as misleading interpretation, and 3 classified as inappropriate extrapolation. The mean 5-year impact factor of the publishing journals was 4.4 ± 0.9 (range, 0-6.1), the mean number of citations per SR was 33.3 ± 24.9 (range, 0-55), and the mean number of citations per month since publication was 0.68 ± 0.44 (range, 0-1.48). According to the AMSTAR 2 assessment, confidence in the results of the SRs was rated as critically low for 20% of reviews, low for 33.3%, and moderate for 46.7%.

Conclusions

Most SRs of the remplissage procedure are affected by the presence of spin. Favorable reporting was observed in the absence of definite findings, as was minimization of drawbacks for certain populations.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
大多数报告再植手术临床结果的系统综述和荟萃分析至少有一种旋转形式
目的 确定再植手术临床研究的系统综述(SR)和荟萃分析中自旋的发生率。方法 两位审稿人根据系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,使用检索词 "再植 "对 PubMed、Scopus 和 Embase 数据库进行了独立的文献检索。对每篇纳入的 SR 全文进行了评估,以确定是否存在 15 种最常见的旋转类型。结果 共纳入了 15 篇系统综述(8 篇附有荟萃分析;6 篇三级,9 篇四级)。总体而言,13 篇 SR(86.7%)包含至少一种形式的自旋,记录了 33 个独特的自旋实例;平均频率为 2.2 ± 1.3(范围为 0-4)。最常见的自旋形式是第 9 种("尽管存在报告偏差,但结论声称实验治疗具有有益效果"),共有 11 项研究(占 73%)采用了这种形式。有 14 项自旋被归类为误导性报告,16 项被归类为误导性解释,3 项被归类为不恰当的外推。发表期刊5年的平均影响因子为4.4±0.9(范围0-6.1),每篇SR的平均引用次数为33.3±24.9(范围0-55),发表后每月的平均引用次数为0.68±0.44(范围0-1.48)。根据 AMSTAR 2 评估,20% 的综述对再植手术结果的置信度为极低,33.3% 为低,46.7% 为中等。证据级别IV级,III级和IV级研究的系统综述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
218
审稿时长
45 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信