The confidence in the results of physiotherapy systematic reviews in the musculoskeletal field is not increasing over time: a meta-epidemiological study using AMSTAR 2 tool.

Evidence-Based Practice Musculoskeletal Diseases Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Systematic Reviews as Topic

Journal

Journal of clinical epidemiology
ISSN: 1878-5921
Titre abrégé: J Clin Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8801383

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 Feb 2024
Historique:
received: 13 12 2023
revised: 15 02 2024
accepted: 19 02 2024
medline: 26 2 2024
pubmed: 26 2 2024
entrez: 25 2 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To assess the confidence in the results of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions in the past ten years and to analyze trends and factors associated. This is a meta-epidemiological study on systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCT). MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and PEDro were searched for SRs of RCT on physiotherapy interventions for musculoskeletal disorders from December 2012 to December 2022. Two researchers independently screened the records based on the inclusion criteria; a random sample of 100 studies was selected, and each journal, author, and study variable was extracted. The methodological quality of SRs was independently assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool. Any disagreement was solved by consensus. The confidence in SRs results was critically low in 90% of the studies, and it did not increase over time. Cochrane reviews are predominantly represented in the higher AMSTAR 2 confidence levels, with a statistically significant difference compared to non-Cochrane reviews. The last author's H-index is the only predictor of higher confidence among the variables analyzed (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01 - 1.06). The confidence in SRs results is unacceptably low. Given the relevance of musculoskeletal disorders and the impact of evidence synthesis on the clinical decision-making process, there is an urgent need to improve the quality of secondary research by adopting more rigorous methods.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38402999
pii: S0895-4356(24)00058-1
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111303
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

111303

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Nicola Ferri (N)

Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Division of Occupational Medicine, IRCCS University Hospital of Bologna S Orsola-Malpighi Polyclinic, Bologna, Italy.

Elisa Ravizzotti (E)

Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics and Maternal Child Health (DINOGMI), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.

Alessandro Bracci (A)

Department for Life Quality Studies (QUVI), University of Bologna, Rimini, Italy.

Giulia Carreras (G)

Oncologic Network, Prevention and Research Institute (ISPRO), Florence, Italy.

Paolo Pillastrini (P)

Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; Division of Occupational Medicine, IRCCS University Hospital of Bologna S Orsola-Malpighi Polyclinic, Bologna, Italy.

Mauro Di Bari (M)

Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy; Unit of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine and Geriatrics, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy.

Classifications MeSH