[Reevaluation of the methodological quality in meta-analyses of accelerated rehabilitation on recovery after surgery for colorectal cancer].

To evaluate the methodological quality and impacts on outcomes for systematic reviews (SRs) of accelerated rehabilitation versus traditional control for colorectal surgery. We comprehensively searched six databases and additional websites to collect SRs, or meta-analysis from inception to July 2016. The Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) was applied for quality assessment of the included studies, the tools recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration was applied for quality assessment for RCT and CCT and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied to assess observational study. The relative ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were integrated using Review Manager 5.3 software. Fourteen meta-analyses were included in total. The mean OQAQ score was 3.8 with 95% 3.2 to 4.3. Only three meta-analyses were assessed as good quality. Two studies misused statistical models. A total of 42 primary studies referenced by meta-analyses were included, of which, 25 RCTs were levelled grade B and 1 CCT was levelled grade C. An estimated mean NOS score of 16 observation studies was 6.75 (totally scored 9 with 95% 6.4 to 7.1), of which, 10 studies scored ≥7 were high quality, 6 studies scored 6 were moderate quality. Currently, the overall quality of meta-analyses about comparing the effects and safety between accelerated rehabilitation and traditional control for colorectal surgery is fairly poor and the evidence level is lower. Health providers should apply the evidence with caution in clinical practice.