TITLE

Twenty Years of Meta-Analyses in Orthopaedic Surgery: Has Quality Kept Up with Quantity?

AUTHOR(S)
Dijkman, Bernadette G.; Abouali, Jihad A. K.; Kooistra, Bauke W.; Conter, Henry J.; Poolman, Rudolf W.; Kulkarni, Abhaya V.; Tornetta III, Paul; Bhandari, Mohit
PUB. DATE
January 2010
SOURCE
Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, American Volume;Jan2010, Vol. 92-A Issue 1, p48
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
Background: As the number of studies in the literature is increasing, orthopaedic surgeons highly depend on meta-analyses as their primary source of scientific evidence. The objectives of this review were to assess the scientific quality and number of published meta-analyses on orthopaedics-related topics over time. Methods: We conducted, in duplicate and independently, a systematic review of published meta-analyses in orthopaedics in the years 2005 and 2008 and compared them with a previous systematic review of meta-analyses from 1969 to 1999. A search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) was performed to identify meta-analyses published in 2005 and 2008. We searched bibliographies and contacted content experts to identify additional relevant studies. Two investigators independently assessed the quality of the studies, using the Oxman and Guyatt index, and abstracted relevant data. Results: We included forty-five and forty-four meta-analyses from 2005 and 2008, respectively. While the number of meta-analyses increased fivefold from 1999 to 2008, the mean quality score did not change significantly overtime (p = 0.067). In the later years, a significantly lower proportion of meta-analyses had methodological flaws (56% in 2005 and 68% in 2008) compared with meta-analyses published prior to 2000 (88%) (p = 0.006). In 2005 and 2008, respectively, 18% and 30% of the meta-analyses had major to extensive flaws in their methodology. Studies from 2008 with positive conclusions used and described appropriate criteria for the validity assessment less often than did those with negative results. The use of random-effects and fixed-effects models as pooling methods became more popular toward 2008. Conclusions: Although the methodological quality of orthopaedic meta-analyses has increased in the past twenty years, a substantial proportion continues to show major to extensive flaws. As the number of published meta-analyses is increasing, a routine checklist for scientific quality should be used in the peer-review process to ensure methodological standards for publication.
ACCESSION #
48877089

 

Related Articles

  • The Fine Print of Literature Reviews. Ward-Smith, Peggy // Urologic Nursing;Sep/Oct2016, Vol. 36 Issue 5, p253 

    The article discusses issues relevant to literature reviews in nursing research. Topics covered include the definition of literature review as critical and objective analyses of the relevant literature on the topic under review, types of published literature including grey, peer-reviewed and...

  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Smith, C. J. // Phlebology;Sep2011, Vol. 26 Issue 6, p271 

    The article presents an overview of two types of research designs; systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A discussion of reasons why researchers might choose to use the two types of research design in their research is presented. Additional resources which can be used to gain additional...

  • What You Need to Know about MOC's "Peer Review". HURWITZ, SHEPARD R. // AAOS Now;Aug2013, Vol. 7 Issue 8, p33 

    The article discusses the things orthopaedic surgeons should know about the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery's (ABOS) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) peer review. The author tackles the things that need to be done to complete the ABOS peer review. He also offers tips on what to do after...

  • Improved incident reporting following the implementation of a standardized emergency department peer review process. Reznek, Martin A.; Barton, Bruce A. // International Journal for Quality in Health Care;Jun2014, Vol. 26 Issue 3, p278 

    Objective Incident reporting is an important component of health care quality improvement. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness of an emergency department (ED) peer review process in promoting incident reporting. Design An observational, interrupted time-series...

  • Treatment of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy using ursodeoxycholic acid: a meta-analysis. Wei Lian; Xiaocong Liu; Long Yang; Liangjun Zhang; Xinchan Feng; Wensheng Chen // International Journal of Clinical & Experimental Medicine;2016, Vol. 9 Issue 7, p14913 

    Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (ICP) is one pregnant-associated complication that is manifested as skin itches, liver dysfunction and elevated bile acid. ICP significantly increases the rate of perinatal death. This study thus performed a systematic analysis for the treatment efficacy of...

  • Falls and major orthopaedic surgery with peripheral nerve blockade: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Johnson, R. L.; Kopp, S. L.; Hebl, J. R.; Erwin, P. J.; Mantilla, C. B. // BJA: The British Journal of Anaesthesia;Apr2013, Vol. 110 Issue 4, p518 

    The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the risk for falls after major orthopaedic surgery with peripheral nerve blockade. Electronic databases from inception through January 2012 were searched. Eligible studies evaluated falls after peripheral nerve blockade...

  • Improving `medical necessity' acceptance by health care providers and consumers. Hepps, S.A. // Physician Executive;Jul1994, Vol. 20 Issue 7, p22 

    Discusses the need for health care providers and consumers to accept negative authorization decisions when principles of continuous quality improvement are implemented on the authorization process. Problems brought about by the establishment of peer review and authorization agency medical...

  • Evidence on peer review--scientific quality control or smokescreen? Goldbeck-Wood, Sandra // BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition);01/02/99, Vol. 318 Issue 7175, p44 

    Discusses the importance of the scientific quality control process in peer review. Information on peer review process; Beneficiaries of the peer review system; Speculations on quality review; Major challenges in the process.

  • Peer usage versus peer review. Charlton, Bruce G // BMJ: British Medical Journal (International Edition);9/1/2007, Vol. 335 Issue 7617, p451 

    This article presents the author's view on peer review and says it is not necessary to scientific progress. Scientific evaluation should be labeled "peer usage" which entails testing facts and theories not by opinion but in real, everyday practice. It is his belief that new science should never...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics