{"title":"评估体外冲击波疗法对肌腱病影响的系统综述和元分析的报告和方法质量：范围界定综述","authors":"Saeed Shahabi PhD , Kamran Bagheri Lankarani PhD , Rozhin Ezati BS , Shabnam ShahAli PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jcm.2024.08.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the published systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) that looked at the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on tendinopathies and to summarize its effectiveness.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A search of PubMed, Scopus, PEDro, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and REHABDATA was conducted. SRs/MAs that assessed the effectiveness of ESWT for treating tendinopathy were included. The methodological and reporting quality of the eligible SRs/MAs were assessed using AMSTAR-2 and the PRISMA checklist. In addition, the ROBIS tool was applied to evaluate the risk of bias (RoB).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eighteen SRs/MAs were included. The overall methodological quality was “critically low.” Furthermore, the reporting quality of the included reviews according to PRISMA criteria was not optimal. Based on the ROBIS, a total of 16.2% of the studies had a low RoB, 38.9% had an unclear RoB, and 44.4% of the studies were appraised as having a high RoB.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In this scoping review we found substantial limitations regarding the quality and RoB of SRs/MAs. Therefore, reviewers must consider the AMSTAR-2, PRISMA, and ROBIS tools to improve the quality of future studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94328,"journal":{"name":"Journal of chiropractic medicine","volume":"23 3","pages":"Pages 136-151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Evaluating Effects of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy on Tendinopathies: A Scoping Review\",\"authors\":\"Saeed Shahabi PhD , Kamran Bagheri Lankarani PhD , Rozhin Ezati BS , Shabnam ShahAli PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcm.2024.08.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The purpose of this study was to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the published systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) that looked at the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on tendinopathies and to summarize its effectiveness.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A search of PubMed, Scopus, PEDro, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and REHABDATA was conducted. SRs/MAs that assessed the effectiveness of ESWT for treating tendinopathy were included. The methodological and reporting quality of the eligible SRs/MAs were assessed using AMSTAR-2 and the PRISMA checklist. In addition, the ROBIS tool was applied to evaluate the risk of bias (RoB).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Eighteen SRs/MAs were included. The overall methodological quality was “critically low.” Furthermore, the reporting quality of the included reviews according to PRISMA criteria was not optimal. Based on the ROBIS, a total of 16.2% of the studies had a low RoB, 38.9% had an unclear RoB, and 44.4% of the studies were appraised as having a high RoB.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In this scoping review we found substantial limitations regarding the quality and RoB of SRs/MAs. Therefore, reviewers must consider the AMSTAR-2, PRISMA, and ROBIS tools to improve the quality of future studies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94328,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of chiropractic medicine\",\"volume\":\"23 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 136-151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of chiropractic medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1556370724000166\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of chiropractic medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1556370724000166","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Evaluating Effects of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy on Tendinopathies: A Scoping Review
Objective
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the published systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) that looked at the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on tendinopathies and to summarize its effectiveness.
Methods
A search of PubMed, Scopus, PEDro, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and REHABDATA was conducted. SRs/MAs that assessed the effectiveness of ESWT for treating tendinopathy were included. The methodological and reporting quality of the eligible SRs/MAs were assessed using AMSTAR-2 and the PRISMA checklist. In addition, the ROBIS tool was applied to evaluate the risk of bias (RoB).
Results
Eighteen SRs/MAs were included. The overall methodological quality was “critically low.” Furthermore, the reporting quality of the included reviews according to PRISMA criteria was not optimal. Based on the ROBIS, a total of 16.2% of the studies had a low RoB, 38.9% had an unclear RoB, and 44.4% of the studies were appraised as having a high RoB.
Conclusion
In this scoping review we found substantial limitations regarding the quality and RoB of SRs/MAs. Therefore, reviewers must consider the AMSTAR-2, PRISMA, and ROBIS tools to improve the quality of future studies.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
