Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Mar 16;18(1):30.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0488-8.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR

Xinyu Wu  1 , Huan Sun  1 , Xiaoqin Zhou  1 , Ji Wang  2 , Jing Li  3
Affiliations

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR

Xinyu Wu et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Increasing numbers of systematic reviews (SRs) on total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been published in recent years, but their quality has been unclear. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs on TKA and THA.

Methods: We searched Ovid-Medline, Ovid-Embase, Cochrane Databases (including HTA, DARE, and CDSR), CBM, CNKI, Wang Fang, and VIP, from January 2014 to December 2015 for THA and TKA. The quality of SRs was assessed using the modified 25-item "Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews" (mod-AMSTAR) tool, which was based on the AMSTAR scale. A T-test, nonparametric test, and linear regression were conducted to assess the relationship between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality.

Results: Sixty-three SRs were included, from which the majority of SRs (50, 79.4%) were conducted in Asia. Only 4 reviews were rated as high quality, and most were weak in providing a priori design (6, 9.5%), not limiting the publication type (8, 13%), providing an excluded primary studies list (4, 6.3%) and reporting support for the included primary studies (1, 1.6%). Reviews published in English journals performed better than did Chinese journals in duplicate data extraction (81.3% vs 46.7%, p = 0.017; 70.8% vs 33.3%, p = 0.009) and providing source of support for the SR (87.5% vs 33.3%, P < 0.001). Reviews published in journals with a higher impact factor were associated with a higher mod-AMSTAR score (regression coefficient: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.11-0.65; P = 0.006).

Conclusion: The methodological quality of the included SRs is far from satisfactory. Authors of SRs should conform to the recommendations outlined in the mod-AMSTAR items. Areas needing improvement were providing a priori design, not limiting the publication type, providing an excluded primary studies list, and reporting conflicts of interest.

Keywords: Bibliographical characteristics; Methodological quality; Systematic review; Total hip or knee arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flowchart, which was referred to the PRISMA statement [24] (Study flow chart)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Relationship between mod-AMSTAR score and journal impact factor (Relationship)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. 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. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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.
    1. Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet. 1998;351(9096):123–127. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)08468-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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):440–447. doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572011000500002. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.102. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types