Search

Summary: High‐quality systematic reviews (SR) and meta‐analyses (MA) are considered to be reliable sources of information. This study aims to assess the quality of studies published as SR or MA in the field of bariatrics in 2016 and 2017. We identified SR and MA in the field of bariatrics by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Eligible studies were those identified as SR/MA in the title/abstract, which aimed to assess any outcome in patients with morbid obesity undergoing or scheduled to undergo bariatric surgery. Two authors independently reviewed all titles and abstracts, assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies, and assessed the quality of included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer. We evaluated the quality and risk of bias of each SR/MA using AMSTAR 2 checklist and ROBIS tool, respectively. Seventy‐eight of 4236 references met inclusion criteria and were assessed for their quality/risk of bias. The methodological quality of 99% of all papers was classified as "critically low." A total of 6% of the studies were at low risk of bias, and 78% were assessed as being at high risk of bias. The methodological quality of studies published in 2016 and 2017 as SR/MA is highly unsatisfactory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Several systematic reviews have been performed to investigate whether intra-articular steroid injections can increase the risk of infection in subsequent arthroplasty. However, the conclusions of these systematic reviews are discordant. The purpose of the present study was to select best evidence and consider risk of bias of these systematic reviews and to provide recommendations through the best evidence. Methods: The systematic reviews that compared the infection rates of arthroplasty with or without previous intra-articular steroid injection were identified. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included systematic reviews were assessed by the AMSTAR instrument and ROBIS tool, respectively. Heterogeneity information within each variable was extracted from the included studies. The Jadad algorithm was then used to determine which systematic reviews can provide the best evidence. Results: Six systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion. The Jadad decision-making tool suggested that two reviews with highest AMSTAR score should be selected. According to the ROBIS tool, there were three systematic reviews with low risk of bias and three with high risk of bias. As a result, two systematic reviews conducted by Charalambous et al. and Marsland et al. with highest AMSTAR scores and low risk of bias were selected as the best evidence. Conclusions: The present study demonstrates that intra-articular steroid injections prior to arthroplasty did not increase infection rates severely after the operation. However, the strength of recommendation is weak due to the limitations of current evidence. Further high-quality primary studies are still required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: Numerous systematic reviews investigating the efficacy of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) in treating knee osteoarthritis (OA) have been recently published. The purpose of the present study was (1) to perform an overview of overlapping systematic reviews investigating PRP for knee OA via evaluating methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews and (2) to provide recommendations through the best evidence. Methods: A systematic search of systematic reviews published through Feb 2017 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included systematic reviews were assessed by AMSTAR instrument and ROBIS tool respectively. Best evidence choice procedure was conducted according to the Jadad decision algorithm. The systematic reviews with high quality of methodology and low risk of bias were selected ultimately. Results: Ten systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion. The Jadad decision making tool suggested that the reviews with highest AMSTAR score should be selected. According to the ROBIS tool, there were 4 systematic reviews with low risk of bias and 6 with high risk of bias. As a result, two systematic reviews conducted by Dai et al and Meheux et al with highest AMSTAR score and low risk of bias were selected as the best evidence. Conclusions: The present overview demonstrates that PRP is an effective intervention in treating knee OA without increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the present conclusions may help decision makers interpret and choose PRP with more confidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: Intra‐articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) is a common, yet controversial therapeutic option in treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of the present study was to assess the risk of bias (RoB) of systematic reviews (SRs) and to summarize available evidence of HA in treating knee OA. Methods: A systematic search of SRs published through to December 2016 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The RoB of included SRs was assessed by ROBIS tool. In addition, the methodological quality of primary studies in SRs with low RoB was evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook. The evidence quality of each primary outcome of SRs with low RoB was determined by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Thirty‐one SRs were eligible for inclusion. According to the ROBIS tool, there were 13 SRs with low RoB, 16 with high RoB and two with unclear RoB. The methodological quality of a total of 135 primary studies was evaluated and summarized. Forty‐two outcomes from these 13 SRs were classified into the four following quality levels based on the GRADE approach: three outcomes with high quality, eight with moderate quality, 12 with low quality and 19 with very low quality. Conclusions: This study evaluated RoB in SRs for managing knee OA with HA and assessed the evidence quality of each primary outcome in SRs with low RoB. These results can help users of SRs to improve the process of SR assessment in developing overviews or guidelines, leading to more reliable recommendations for improvements in treating knee OA. Registration: PROSPERO ( (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO) [CRD42017057384]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]