Reasons for Downgrading the Certainty of Evidence for Indirectness in Synthesis of Surgical Procedures for Patients With Fractures: A Meta-Research Analysis

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Julia Pozzetti Daou, Rachel Riera, Rafael Leite Pacheco
{"title":"Reasons for Downgrading the Certainty of Evidence for Indirectness in Synthesis of Surgical Procedures for Patients With Fractures: A Meta-Research Analysis","authors":"Julia Pozzetti Daou,&nbsp;Rachel Riera,&nbsp;Rafael Leite Pacheco","doi":"10.1111/jep.70091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Rationale</h3>\n \n <p>Indirectness occurs when the synthesized evidence may not be directly applied to the relevant clinical context. A common argument used by surgeons is that evidence that arises from clinical trials is limited due to a lack of fidelity regarding surgery techniques, materials, and surgeon and center experience. Considering that there are many particularities in surgical interventions for the treatment of bone fractures, diverseness is expected among trials that randomized patients to compare surgical procedures. An in-depth analysis of how this expected diverseness is reflected in indirectness judgments on the certainty of synthesized evidence is lacking.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims and Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To analyze the certainty of evidence from all Cochrane reviews of surgical interventions for the treatment of patients with bone fractures and the reasons for indirectness downgrading.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>A meta-research analysis of all Cochrane systematic reviews that compare any surgical interventions in patients with any type of bone fracture. A sensitive search was conducted in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review from inception to 16 October 2024.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The certainty of the evidence of all Cochrane reviews of surgical interventions for patients with fractures is very low or low in 66.5% of eligible outcomes. Indirectness contributed to the certainty downgrade in only 12.26% of outcomes (26/212), and of those, the indirectness was related to the intervention in 11.5% (4/26). The results show that although the certainty of evidence of surgical interventions for patients with fractures is usually downgraded, indirectness is not a common cause of concern.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The certainty of evidence for surgical interventions in patients with fractures is typically downgraded, often to very low. However, indirectness is not a common reason for such downgrading. The anticipated diverseness regarding surgery techniques, materials, and surgeon and center experience was not impactful in the overall certainty of evidence in the Cochrane reviews that were included.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jep.70091","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70091","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Rationale

Indirectness occurs when the synthesized evidence may not be directly applied to the relevant clinical context. A common argument used by surgeons is that evidence that arises from clinical trials is limited due to a lack of fidelity regarding surgery techniques, materials, and surgeon and center experience. Considering that there are many particularities in surgical interventions for the treatment of bone fractures, diverseness is expected among trials that randomized patients to compare surgical procedures. An in-depth analysis of how this expected diverseness is reflected in indirectness judgments on the certainty of synthesized evidence is lacking.

Aims and Objectives

To analyze the certainty of evidence from all Cochrane reviews of surgical interventions for the treatment of patients with bone fractures and the reasons for indirectness downgrading.

Method

A meta-research analysis of all Cochrane systematic reviews that compare any surgical interventions in patients with any type of bone fracture. A sensitive search was conducted in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review from inception to 16 October 2024.

Results

The certainty of the evidence of all Cochrane reviews of surgical interventions for patients with fractures is very low or low in 66.5% of eligible outcomes. Indirectness contributed to the certainty downgrade in only 12.26% of outcomes (26/212), and of those, the indirectness was related to the intervention in 11.5% (4/26). The results show that although the certainty of evidence of surgical interventions for patients with fractures is usually downgraded, indirectness is not a common cause of concern.

Conclusion

The certainty of evidence for surgical interventions in patients with fractures is typically downgraded, often to very low. However, indirectness is not a common reason for such downgrading. The anticipated diverseness regarding surgery techniques, materials, and surgeon and center experience was not impactful in the overall certainty of evidence in the Cochrane reviews that were included.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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