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

Q3 Medicine

Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100969

Tom R. Doyle M.B., M.Ch. , Martin S. Davey M.Ch., M.R.C.S. , Thomas K. Moore M.B., M.Ch. , Max White M.B. , Eoghan T. Hurley M.B., M.Ch., Ph.D. , Christopher S. Klifto M.D. , Jonathan F. Dickens M.D. , Hannan Mullett M.Ch., F.R.C.S.

{"title":"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","authors":"Tom R. Doyle M.B., M.Ch. , Martin S. Davey M.Ch., M.R.C.S. , Thomas K. Moore M.B., M.Ch. , Max White M.B. , Eoghan T. Hurley M.B., M.Ch., Ph.D. , Christopher S. Klifto M.D. , Jonathan F. Dickens M.D. , Hannan Mullett M.Ch., F.R.C.S.","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":"6 5","pages":"Article 100969"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Most Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Reporting Clinical Outcomes of the Remplissage Procedure Have at Least 1 Form of Spin\",\"authors\":\"Tom R. Doyle M.B., M.Ch. , Martin S. Davey M.Ch., M.R.C.S. , Thomas K. Moore M.B., M.Ch. , Max White M.B. , Eoghan T. Hurley M.B., M.Ch., Ph.D. , Christopher S. Klifto M.D. , Jonathan F. Dickens M.D. , Hannan Mullett M.Ch., F.R.C.S.\",\"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\":\"6 5\",\"pages\":\"Article 100969\"},\"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}","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

摘要

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。

查看原文本刊更多论文

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

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.