Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1802964
Qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas sobre o tratamento de osteoartrite com plasma rico em plaquetas: Um estudo de metapesquisa
Article in several languages: português | English
Resumo
Objetivo Avaliar a qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas acerca dos benefícios e malefícios do plasma rico em plaquetas (PRP) no tratamento da osteoartrite.
Métodos Realizou-se uma busca abrangente na literatura, e a qualidade metodológica das revisões incluídas foi avaliada usando a ferramenta A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, Version 2 (AMSTAR-2). Além disso, a avaliação da certeza da evidência usando a abordagem Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) foi investigada. Ao todo, 31 revisões sistemáticas atenderam aos critérios de inclusão.
Resultados A classificação geral de qualidade foi criticamente baixa em quase 84% dos artigos, e baixa em 16,1%. Os critérios metodológicos relatados de forma inadequada com mais frequência estavam relacionados às estratégias de busca, com 77,3% das respostas “não” ou “parcialmente sim”, e os motivos para a exclusão de estudos, que não foram descritos em 100% das revisões. Além disso, 42% não mencionaram o cadastro de seus protocolos, 13% não usaram a ferramenta de qualidade metodológica apropriada para a avaliação do risco de viés dos estudos clínicos incluídos, 45,2% não consideraram o risco de viés na discussão dos resultados, e 32,26% não relataram ou planejaram relatar o viés de publicação. A abordagem GRADE somente foi usada em 19,3% das revisões.
Conclusão Apesar do alto número de revisões sistemáticas sobre o tratamento de osteoartrite com PRP, neste estudo de metapesquisa, identificou-se que a maioria não é conduzida adequadamente, e apresenta falhas metodológicas que podem afetar a confiabilidade dos achados clínicos.
Contribuições dos Autores
Cada autora contribuiu individual e significativamente para o desenvolvimento deste artigo: MEOO, KMMS, MLS, MES, EMS e ALCM contribuíram para a validação, visualização, pesquisa, curadoria de dados, redação – rascunho original, e redação – revisão e edição. MEOO, KMMS e MES contribuíram para a conceitualização. ALCM e EMS trabalharam principalmente na análise formal e na metodologia.
Suporte Financeiro
Os autores declaram que não receberam suporte financeiro de agências dos setores público, privado ou sem fins lucrativos para a realização deste estudo.
Estudo desenvolvido na Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Metropolitana de Santos, Santos, SP, Brasil.
Publication History
Received: 17 August 2024
Accepted: 09 January 2025
Article published online:
28 April 2025
© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua Rego Freitas, 175, loja 1, República, São Paulo, SP, CEP 01220-010, Brazil
Maria Eduarda Oliveira Onuki, Kamilla Mayr Martins Sá, Marcela Lourenço Alves, Maria Eduarda de Souza, Elaine Marcílio Santos, Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco. Qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas sobre o tratamento de osteoartrite com plasma rico em plaquetas: Um estudo de metapesquisa. Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo) 2025; 60: s00451802964.
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1802964
-
Referências
- 1 Bennell KL, Hunter DJ, Paterson KL. Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Management of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2017; 19 (05) 24
- 2 Shirokova K, Gorokhkova V, Shirokova L. The impact of the administration of PRP and disease-modifying therapy on the synovial environment, general health and treatment efficacy in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019; 27 (01) 502-503
- 3 Rodríguez-Merchán EC. Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Review of Their Current Molecular Mechanisms of Action and Their Degree of Efficacy. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23 (03) 1301
- 4 Tonutti A, Granata V, Marrella V. et al. The role of WNT and IL-1 signaling in osteoarthritis: therapeutic implications for platelet-rich plasma therapy. Front Aging 2023; 4: 1201019
- 5 Liu-Bryan R. Synovium and the innate inflammatory network in osteoarthritis progression. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2013; 15 (05) 323
- 6 Page MJ, Moher D. Mass Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: An Exercise in Mega-silliness?. Milbank Q 2016; 94 (03) 515-519
- 7 Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q 2016; 94 (03) 485-514
- 8 Zhang Z. Meta-epidemiological study: a step-by-step approach by using R. J Evid Based Med 2016; 9 (02) 91-97
- 9 Roever L. Understanding Meta-Epidemiological Studies. Int J Cardiovasc Sci 2016; 29 (04) 326-328
- 10 Tsujimoto Y, Tsujimoto H, Kataoka Y. et al. Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 2017; 84: 54-60
- 11 Christensen R. Meta-research: A bird's eye view of OA. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25 (01) 2-3
- 12 Yamamoto N, Taito S, Miura T. et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Orthopedic Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. J Clin Med 2023; 12 (22) 7031
- 13 Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evid Based Med 2017; 22 (04) 139-142
- 14 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372 (71) n71
- 15 Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5 (01) 210
- 16 Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J. et al; GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 2008; 336 (7653): 1106-1110
- 17 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008
- 18 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D. et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17 (01) 1-12
- 19 Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. London, England: Cochrane Collaboration; 2011
- 20 Coleman BD, Khan KM, Maffulli N, Cook JL, Wark JD. Victorian Institute of Sport Tendon Study Group. Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2000; 10 (01) 2-11
- 21 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898
- 22 Zuo W, Guo W, Ma J, Cui W. Dose adductor canal block combined with local infiltration analgesia has a synergistic effect than adductor canal block alone in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14 (01) 101
- 23 Cowan J, Lozano-Calderón S, Ring D. Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials. Analysis of trials of treatment for lateral epicondylitis as an example. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (08) 1693-1699
-
24
Handoll H,
Elstub L,
Elliott J.
et al.
Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. About the Cochrane collab oration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGS). 2008;Issue 4. Art. No: MUSKINJ.
- 25 Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C. et al. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev 2017; 6 (01) 131
- 26 Bero L, Busuttil G, Farquhar C. et al. Measuring the performance of the Cochrane library. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 12 (11) ED000048
- 27 Chandler J, Hopewell S. Cochrane methods–twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Syst Rev 2013; 2: 76
- 28 Useem J, Brennan A, LaValley M. et al. Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10 (12) e0144980
- 29 Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG. et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med 2016; 13 (05) e1002028
- 30 Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 7
- 31 Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA. et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 2014; 383 (9912): 166-175
- 32 Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP. et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53 (09) 964-972
- 33 Cortegiani A, Absalom AR. Importance of proper conduct of clinical trials. Br J Anaesth 2021; 126 (02) 354-356
- 34 Cooper C, Booth A, Varley-Campbell J, Britten N, Garside R. Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18 (01) 85
- 35 Cooper C, Booth A, Britten N, Garside R. A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review. Syst Rev 2017; 6 (01) 234
- 36 Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y. et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009; 339: b4012
- 37 Gagnier JJ, Kellam PJ. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (11) e771-e777
- 38 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE. et al; GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336 (7650): 924-926