Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2021; 56(04): 485-489
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1710334
Artigo Original
Ombro e Cotovelo

Methodological Quality Analysis of Systematic Review for the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Disease[∗]

Article in several languages: português | English
Jhony de Almeida Estevam 
1   Departamento de Ciências do Movimento Humano, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Santos, SP, Brasil
,
Eduardo Signorini Bicas Franco 
1   Departamento de Ciências do Movimento Humano, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Santos, SP, Brasil
,
Carolina Falconi Kriebel 
1   Departamento de Ciências do Movimento Humano, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Santos, SP, Brasil
,
Maria Stella Peccin 
1   Departamento de Ciências do Movimento Humano, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Santos, SP, Brasil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews for the surgical and nonsurgical treatment of individuals with rotator cuff syndrome; to compare, through the Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews(AMSTAR) instrument, the quality of studies found in the Cochrane Library, PubMed (Publisher Medline), EMBASE andQinsightdatabases.

Methods This is a descriptive and comparative cross-sectional study, in which two independent authors analyzed, through the AMSTAR instrument, the methodological quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews on the treatment of individuals diagnosed with rotator cuff syndrome.

Results A total of 76 systematic reviews were evaluated by the AMSTAR instrument. The overall mean score was 6.1 (±2.1) and the mean per database was 9.1 (±0.9) for the Cochrane reviews and 5.7 (±1.8) for the non-Cochrane reviews. The lowest-scoring item of AMSTAR was 11, related to the display of the conflict of interests of the publication. In a comparative analysis of the final variable score, there was a statistical difference between the Cochrane and non-Cochrane studies.

Conclusion According to the present study, systematic reviews using the Cochrane methodology have a better methodological quality compared to non-Cochrane studies on the treatment of rotator cuff dysfunctions.

Keywords

rotator cuff - methodology - systematic review

Financial Support

There was no financial support from public, commercial, or non-profit sources.


∗ Work developed at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Santos, SP, Brazil.




Publication History

Received: 29 October 2019

Accepted: 20 February 2020

Article published online:
29 May 2020

© 2020. Sociedade Brasileira de Ortopedia e Traumatologia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

 

  • Referências

  • 1 Pereira MG, Galvão TF. Revisões sistemáticas da literatura: Passos para sua elaboração. Epidemiol Serv Saude 2014; 23 (01) 183-184
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rother ET. Revisão sistemática X revisão narrativa. Acta Paul Enferm 2007; 20 (02) 1-2
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA. et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) 1013-1020
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kelly SE, Moher D, Clifford TJ. Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. Syst Rev 2016; 5: 79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J. et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2007; 2 (12) e1350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Macedo CR, Riera R, Torloni MR. Methodological quality of systematic reviews and clinical trials on women's health published in a Brazilian evidence-based health journal. Clinics (São Paulo) 2013; 68 (04) 563-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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 (05) 574-583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Atallah AN, Castro AA. Revisão sistemática da literatura e metanálise: Medicina baseada em evidência: Fundamentos da pesquisa clínica. São Paulo: Lemos Editorial; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Sampaio RF, Mancini MC. Estudos de revisão sistemática: um guia para síntese criteriosa da evidência científica. Rev Bras Fisioter 2007; 11 (01) 83-89
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Burda BU, Holmer HK, Norris SL. Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement. Syst Rev 2016; 5: 58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wegewitz U, Weikert B, Fishta A, Jacobs A, Pieper D. Resuming the discussion of AMSTAR: What can (should) be made better?. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016; 16 (01) 111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA. et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Fedorowicz Z, Pandis N. Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?. Eur J Orthod 2013; 35 (02) 244-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Li L, Tian J, Tian H, Sun R, Liu Y, Yang K. Quality and transparency of overviews of systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med 2012; 5 (03) 166-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar