在边缘性髋关节发育不良情况下进行髋关节镜手术的系统综述和荟萃分析的摘要和正文中普遍存在旋转偏差

Q3 Medicine

Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100971

Jeffrey J. Theismann M.D., Matthew J. Hartwell M.D., Samuel G. Moulton M.D., Stephanie E. Wong M.D., Alan L. Zhang M.D.

{"title":"在边缘性髋关节发育不良情况下进行髋关节镜手术的系统综述和荟萃分析的摘要和正文中普遍存在旋转偏差","authors":"Jeffrey J. Theismann M.D., Matthew J. Hartwell M.D., Samuel G. Moulton M.D., Stephanie E. Wong M.D., Alan L. Zhang M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To assess the quality and presence of spin bias in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluated the outcomes of using hip arthroscopy for the treatment of hip pathology in the setting of borderline hip dysplasia.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>PubMed and Embase were searched using the terms “borderline hip dysplasia” and “systematic review” or “meta-analysis.” Forty-one initial studies were identified, and 12 met the inclusion criteria. Study characteristics were then collected, and each study was evaluated for the 15 most common types of bias and study quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) rating system. Inclusion criteria included a systematic review with or without meta-analysis, published in a peer-reviewed journal, accessible in English, with outcomes after hip arthroscopy for borderline hip dysplasia.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The 12 reviewed studies were published between 2016 and 2023, and 10 of the studies represented Level IV evidence (2 studies were Level III evidence). At least 1 form of spin was identified in 83% (10/12) of the included studies. Regarding the specific categories of spin type, misleading interpretation was identified in 58% (7/12) of the studies, misleading reporting in 67% (8/12) of the studies, and inappropriate extrapolation in 50% (6/12) of the studies. On the basis of the AMSTAR 2 assessment, 92% (11/12) were categorized as either low quality or critically low quality, with 1 study being categorized as moderate.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Spin bias is frequently encountered in the abstracts for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluate outcomes after hip arthroscopy for the treatment of hip pathology in the setting of borderline hip dysplasia.</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":"6 5","pages":"Article 100971"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spin Bias Is Common in the Abstracts and Main Body of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Borderline Hip Dysplasia\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey J. Theismann M.D., Matthew J. Hartwell M.D., Samuel G. Moulton M.D., Stephanie E. Wong M.D., Alan L. Zhang M.D.\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100971\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To assess the quality and presence of spin bias in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluated the outcomes of using hip arthroscopy for the treatment of hip pathology in the setting of borderline hip dysplasia.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>PubMed and Embase were searched using the terms “borderline hip dysplasia” and “systematic review” or “meta-analysis.” Forty-one initial studies were identified, and 12 met the inclusion criteria. Study characteristics were then collected, and each study was evaluated for the 15 most common types of bias and study quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) rating system. Inclusion criteria included a systematic review with or without meta-analysis, published in a peer-reviewed journal, accessible in English, with outcomes after hip arthroscopy for borderline hip dysplasia.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The 12 reviewed studies were published between 2016 and 2023, and 10 of the studies represented Level IV evidence (2 studies were Level III evidence). At least 1 form of spin was identified in 83% (10/12) of the included studies. Regarding the specific categories of spin type, misleading interpretation was identified in 58% (7/12) of the studies, misleading reporting in 67% (8/12) of the studies, and inappropriate extrapolation in 50% (6/12) of the studies. On the basis of the AMSTAR 2 assessment, 92% (11/12) were categorized as either low quality or critically low quality, with 1 study being categorized as moderate.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Spin bias is frequently encountered in the abstracts for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluate outcomes after hip arthroscopy for the treatment of hip pathology in the setting of borderline hip dysplasia.</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\":\"6 5\",\"pages\":\"Article 100971\"},\"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/S2666061X24000981\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X24000981","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

摘要

目的评估系统综述和荟萃分析摘要的质量以及是否存在旋转偏倚，这些摘要评估了在边缘性髋关节发育不良的情况下使用髋关节镜治疗髋关节病变的结果。方法使用 "边缘性髋关节发育不良"、"系统综述 "或 "荟萃分析 "等术语检索了PubMed和Embase。初步确定了 41 项研究，其中 12 项符合纳入标准。随后收集了研究特征，并使用系统综述评估工具 2 (AMSTAR 2) 评级系统对每项研究进行了 15 种最常见的偏倚和研究质量评估。纳入标准包括带或不带荟萃分析的系统综述，发表在同行评审期刊上，以英语发表，内容为髋关节镜手术治疗边缘性髋关节发育不良后的结果。结果12项综述研究发表于2016年至2023年，其中10项研究为IV级证据（2项研究为III级证据）。在纳入的研究中，83%（10/12）的研究确定了至少一种旋转形式。在特定的旋转类型中，58%（7/12）的研究发现了误导性解释，67%（8/12）的研究发现了误导性报告，50%（6/12）的研究发现了不恰当的外推。根据 AMSTAR 2 评估，92%（11/12 项）的研究被归类为低质量或极低质量，1 项研究被归类为中等质量。结论在系统综述和荟萃分析的摘要中经常出现旋转偏倚，这些综述和荟萃分析评估了在边缘性髋关节发育不良的情况下进行髋关节镜手术治疗髋关节病变后的结果。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Spin Bias Is Common in the Abstracts and Main Body of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Borderline Hip Dysplasia

Purpose

To assess the quality and presence of spin bias in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluated the outcomes of using hip arthroscopy for the treatment of hip pathology in the setting of borderline hip dysplasia.

Methods

PubMed and Embase were searched using the terms “borderline hip dysplasia” and “systematic review” or “meta-analysis.” Forty-one initial studies were identified, and 12 met the inclusion criteria. Study characteristics were then collected, and each study was evaluated for the 15 most common types of bias and study quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) rating system. Inclusion criteria included a systematic review with or without meta-analysis, published in a peer-reviewed journal, accessible in English, with outcomes after hip arthroscopy for borderline hip dysplasia.

Results

The 12 reviewed studies were published between 2016 and 2023, and 10 of the studies represented Level IV evidence (2 studies were Level III evidence). At least 1 form of spin was identified in 83% (10/12) of the included studies. Regarding the specific categories of spin type, misleading interpretation was identified in 58% (7/12) of the studies, misleading reporting in 67% (8/12) of the studies, and inappropriate extrapolation in 50% (6/12) of the studies. On the basis of the AMSTAR 2 assessment, 92% (11/12) were categorized as either low quality or critically low quality, with 1 study being categorized as moderate.

Conclusions

Spin bias is frequently encountered in the abstracts for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluate outcomes after hip arthroscopy for the treatment of hip pathology in the setting of borderline hip dysplasia.