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

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

• Referências

• 1 Pereira MG, Galvão TF. Revisões sistemáticas da literatura: Passos para sua elaboração. Epidemiol Serv Saude 2014; 23 (01) 183-184
• 2 Rother ET. Revisão sistemática X revisão narrativa. Acta Paul Enferm 2007; 20 (02) 1-2
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 8 Atallah AN, Castro AA. Revisão sistemática da literatura e metanálise: Medicina baseada em evidência: Fundamentos da pesquisa clínica. São Paulo: Lemos Editorial; 1998
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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