Nội dung được dịch bởi AI, chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Đánh giá chất lượng của các tổng quan hệ thống về phẫu thuật thay khớp hông hoặc đầu gối bằng công cụ mod-AMSTAR
Tóm tắt
Số lượng các tổng quan hệ thống (TQLT) về phẫu thuật thay khớp gối (TKA) và phẫu thuật thay khớp hông (THA) ngày càng tăng trong những năm gần đây, nhưng chất lượng của chúng vẫn chưa rõ ràng. Mục tiêu của nghiên cứu này là đánh giá chất lượng phương pháp học của các TQLT về TKA và THA. Chúng tôi đã tìm kiếm trên Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, các Cơ sở Dữ liệu Cochrane (bao gồm HTA, DARE và CDSR), CBM, CNKI, Wang Fang và VIP, từ tháng 1 năm 2014 đến tháng 12 năm 2015 cho TKA và THA. Chất lượng của các TQLT được đánh giá bằng công cụ “Đánh giá nhiều tổng quan hệ thống” (mod-AMSTAR) với 25 mục, dựa trên thang đo AMSTAR. Chúng tôi đã thực hiện kiểm định T, kiểm định phi tham số và hồi quy tuyến tính để đánh giá mối quan hệ giữa các đặc điểm tài liệu và chất lượng phương pháp học. Sáu mươi ba TQLT đã được đưa vào nghiên cứu, trong đó phần lớn các TQLT (50, 79,4%) được thực hiện ở Châu Á. Chỉ có 4 đánh giá được xếp loại là chất lượng cao, và phần lớn còn yếu trong việc cung cấp thiết kế a priori (6, 9,5%), không giới hạn loại hình xuất bản (8, 13%), cung cấp danh sách các nghiên cứu chính bị loại trừ (4, 6,3%) và báo cáo hỗ trợ cho các nghiên cứu chính được bao gồm (1, 1,6%). Các đánh giá được công bố trên các tạp chí tiếng Anh có kết quả tốt hơn so với các tạp chí tiếng Trung về việc trích xuất dữ liệu trùng lặp (81,3% so với 46,7%, p = 0,017; 70,8% so với 33,3%, p = 0,009) và cung cấp nguồn hỗ trợ cho TQLT (87,5% so với 33,3%, P < 0,001). Các đánh giá được công bố trên các tạp chí có hệ số tác động cao hơn có liên quan đến điểm mod-AMSTAR cao hơn (hệ số hồi quy: 0,38, 95%CI: 0,11–0,65; P = 0,006). Chất lượng phương pháp học của các TQLT được đưa vào nghiên cứu còn xa sự hài lòng. Tác giả của các TQLT nên tuân thủ các khuyến nghị được nêu trong các mục mod-AMSTAR. Những lĩnh vực cần cải thiện bao gồm cung cấp thiết kế a priori, không giới hạn loại hình xuất bản, cung cấp danh sách các nghiên cứu chính bị loại trừ và báo cáo xung đột lợi ích.
Từ khóa
#Tổng quan hệ thống #phẫu thuật thay khớp gối #phẫu thuật thay khớp hông #chất lượng phương pháp học #mod-AMSTARTài liệu tham khảo
Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.
Sally Green, Julian PT Higgins, Philip Alderson, etc. 1.2.2 what is a systematic review? In: The Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. 2011. http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed 9 Aug 2017.
Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351(9096):123–7.
Sequeira-Byron P, Fedorowicz Z, Jagannath VA, Sharif MO. An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the journal of applied oral science (JAOS). J Appl Oral Sci. 2011;19(5):440–7.
Ho RS, Wu X, Yuan J, Liu S, Lai X, Wong SY, Chung VC. Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) tool. NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine. 2015;25:14102.
Seo HJ, Kim KU: Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2012, 12:129.(doi):https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-1112-1129.
Momeni A, Lee GK, Talley JR. The quality of systematic reviews in hand surgery: an analysis using AMSTAR. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 2013;131(4):831–7.
Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14(3):116–37.
Corbyons K, Han J, Neuberger MM, Dahm P. Methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2012. J Urol. 2015;194(5):1374–9.
Braga LH, Pemberton J, Demaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology. J Urol. 2011;186(1):266–71.
Lorne A Becker ADO. Chapter 22: overviews of reviews. In: The Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0; 2011. http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed 4 Aug 2017.
Wold Population Ageing: 1950-2050. In: Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldageing19502050/index.htm. Accessed 16 Jun 2017.
Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S, Price AJ, Arden NK, Judge A, Beard DJ. Knee replacement. Lancet. 2012;379(9823):1331–40.
Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery - American Volume. 2004;86-A(5):963–74.
Randomzied control trials in total hip or knee arthroplasty. Pubmed.2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=(((((((total%20knee%20arthroplasty)%20OR%20total%20hip%20arthroplasty))%20AND%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trial)%20AND%20(%20%222005%2F01%2F01%22%5BPDat%5D%20%3A%20%222015%2F12%2F31%22%5BPDat%5D%20)))%20AND%20(%20%222005%2F01%2F01%22%5BPDat%5D%20%3A%20%222015%2F12%2F31%22%5BPDat%5D%20)). Accessed 24 July 2017.
Meta-analysis in total hip or knee arthroplasty. Pubmed. 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=(((((total%20knee%20arthroplasty)%20OR%20total%20hip%20arthroplasty))%20AND%20meta%20analysis)%20AND%20(%20%222005%2F01%2F01%22%5BPDat%5D%20%3A%20%222015%2F12%2F31%22%5BPDat%5D%20)).Accessed 24 July 2017.
Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, Li Y, Liu Y, Zhou M, Liu P, Ye L, Li Y, Tian W. The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(8):770–5.
Wu XY, Lam VC, Yu YF, Ho RS, Feng Y, Wong CH, Yip BH, Tsoi KK, Wong SY, Chung VC. Epidemiological characteristics and methodological quality of meta-analyses on diabetes mellitus treatment: a systematic review. Eur J Endocrinol. 2016;175(5):353–60.
Sharif MO, Janjua-Sharif FN, Ali H, Ahmed F. Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly. Oral Health Dent Manag. 2013;12(1):9–16.
Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, Ramsay T, Bai A, Shukla VK, Grimshaw JM. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007;2(12):e1350.
Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC, Langhorne P, Mead GE, Mehrholz J, van WF: Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. In: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014.
Kung J, Chiappelli F, Cajulis OO, Avezova R, Kossan G, Chew L, Maida CA. From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. Open Dent J. 2010;4:84–91.
Tang W, Hu J, Zhang H, Wu P, He H. Kappa coefficient: a popular measure of rater agreement. Shanghai archives of psychiatry. 2015;27(1):62–7.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International journal of surgery (London, England). 2010;8(5):336–41.
Higgins BT, Barlow DR, Heagerty NE, Lin TJ. Anterior vs. posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty, a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):419–34.
Verra WC, Van Den Boom LGH, Jacobs WCH, Schoones JW, Wymenga AB, Nelissen RGHH. Similar outcome after retention or sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(2):195–201.
Berstock JR, Blom AW, Beswick AD. A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications following the posterior and lateral surgical approaches to total hip arthroplasty. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2015;97(1):11–6.
Berstock JR, Blom AW, Beswick AD. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the standard versus mini-incision posterior approach to total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(10):1970–82.
Li N, Tan Y, Deng Y, Chen L. Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(3):556–64.
Wasiak J, Shen AY, Tan HB, Mahar R, Kan G, Khoo WR, Faggion CM Jr. Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(3):399–431.
Wasiak J, Shen AY, Ware R, O'Donohoe TJ, Faggion CM, Jr.: Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. J Hand Surg Eur Vol, 2017, 42(8):852–856.
Tsertsvadze A, Grove A, Freeman K, Court R, Johnson S, Connock M, Clarke A, Sutcliffe P. Total hip replacement for the treatment of end stage arthritis of the hip: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 2014;9(7):e99804.
Rebal BA, Babatunde OM, Lee JH, Geller JA, Patrick DA, Jr., Macaulay W: Imageless computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty provides superior short term functional outcomes: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty, 2014, 29(5):938–944.
Han JL, Gandhi S, Bockoven CG, Narayan VM, Dahm P. The landscape of systematic reviews in urology (1998 to 2015): an assessment of methodological quality. BJU Int. 2017;119(4):638–49.
Green SHJ. Alderson P. Cochrane Handbook: Clarke M; 2008.
Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2012;1(1)
Peersman G, Stuyts B, Vandenlangenbergh T, Cartier P, Fennema P. Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(11):3296–305.
Liu HW, Gu WD, Xu NW, Sun JY. Surgical approaches in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis comparing the midvastus and subvastus to the medial peripatellar approach. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(12):2298–304.
Li T, Zhou L, Zhuang Q, Weng X, Bian Y. Patellar denervation in total knee arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing and postoperative anterior knee pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(12):2309–13.
Tao L, Qianyu Z, Ke X, Lei Z, Xisheng W. Comparison of the clinical and radiological outcomes following midvastus and medial parapatellar approaches for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Chin Med J. 2014;
Cheng T. No clinical benefit of gender-specific total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 6 randomized controlled trials. Author reply. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(2):274–5.
Bo ZD, Liao L, Zhao JM, Wei QJ, Ding XF, Yang B. Mobile bearing or fixed bearing? A meta-analysis of outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing bilateral total knee replacements. Knee. 2014;21(2):374–81.
Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Harbord RM, Schmid CH, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2011;d4002:343.
Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ. Publication and related biases. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England). 2000;4(10):1–115.
McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet (London, England). 2000;356(9237):1228–31.
Wang H, Lou H, Zhang H, Jiang J, Liu K. Similar survival between uncemented and cemented fixation prostheses in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic comparative analysis using registers. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(12):3191–7.
Moskal JT, Capps SG. Rotating-platform TKA no different from fixed-bearing TKA regarding survivorship or performance: a meta-analysis. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. 2014;472(7):2185–93.
Xie X, Lin L, Zhu B, Lu Y, Lin Z, Li Q. Will gender-specific total knee arthroplasty be a better choice for women? A systematic review and meta-analysis. European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatologie. 2014;24(8):1341–9.
Hu D, Yang X, Tan Y, Alaidaros M, Chen L. Ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2015;38(4):e331-e338.
Campbell JM, Kavanagh S, Kurmis R, Munn Z. Systematic Reviews in Burns Care: Poor Quality and Getting Worse. Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association. 2017;38(2):e552–67.
Pang WK, Yeter KC, Torralba KD, Spencer HJ, Khan NA. Financial conflicts of interest and their association with outcome and quality of fibromyalgia drug therapy randomized controlled trials. Int J Rheum Dis. 2015;18(6):606–15.
Roseman M, Milette K, Bero LA, Coyne JC, Lexchin J, Turner EH, Thombs BD. Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments. JAMA. 2011;305(10):1008–17.
Sismondo S. How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: causal structures and responses. Social science & medicine (1982). 2008;66(9):1909–14.
Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA. 2003;290(7):921–8.
Oremus M, Oremus C, Hall GB, McKinnon MC. Inter-rater and test-retest reliability of quality assessments by novice student raters using the Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa scales. BMJ Open. 2012;2(4)
Hartling L, Milne A, Hamm MP, Vandermeer B, Ansari M, Tsertsvadze A, Dryden DM. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(9):982–93.
Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.
Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(3):666–76.
Greenland S, O'Rourke K. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics. 2001;2(4):463–71.
Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2016;i4919:355.
Fleming PS, Koletsi D, Seehra J, Pandis N. Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(7):754–9.
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2017;j4008:358.
Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013–20.
Pieper D, Buechter RB, Li L, Prediger B, Eikermann M. Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(5):574–83.