Kolaski Kat, Romeiser Logan Lynne, Goss Katherine D, Butler Charlene
Department of Orthopedics, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2021 Nov;63(11):1316-1326. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.14949. Epub 2021 Jun 6.
To evaluate the methodological quality of recent systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy in order to determine the level of confidence in the reviews' conclusions.
A comprehensive search of 22 databases identified eligible systematic reviews with and without meta-analysis published worldwide from 2015 to 2019. We independently extracted data and used A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to appraise methodological quality.
Eighty-three systematic reviews met strict eligibility criteria. Most were from Europe and Latin America and reported on rehabilitative interventions. AMSTAR-2 appraisal found critically low confidence in 88% (n=73) because of multiple and varied deficiencies. Only 7% (n=6) had no AMSTAR-2 critical domain deficiency. The number of systematic reviews increased fivefold from 2015 to 2019; however, quality did not improve over time.
Most of these systematic reviews are considered unreliable according to AMSTAR-2. Current recommendations for treating children with CP based on these flawed systematic reviews need re-evaluation. Findings are comparable to reports from other areas of medicine, despite the general perception that systematic reviews are high-level evidence. The required use of current widely accepted guidance for conducting and reporting systematic reviews by authors, peer reviewers, and editors is critical to ensure reliable, unbiased, and transparent systematic reviews. What this paper adds Confidence was critically low in the conclusions of 88% of systematic reviews about interventions for children with cerebral palsy (CP). Quality issues in the sample were not limited to systematic reviews of non-randomized trials, or to those about certain populations of CP or interventions. The inclusion of meta-analysis did not improve the level of confidence in these systematic reviews. Numbers of systematic reviews on this topic increased over the 5 search years but their methodological quality did not improve.
评估近期关于脑瘫儿童干预措施的系统评价的方法学质量,以确定对这些评价结论的置信水平。
全面检索22个数据库,找出2015年至2019年在全球发表的有或没有荟萃分析的符合条件的系统评价。我们独立提取数据,并使用系统评价评估测量工具-2(AMSTAR-2)来评估方法学质量。
83项系统评价符合严格的纳入标准。大多数来自欧洲和拉丁美洲,报告的是康复干预措施。AMSTAR-2评估发现,由于存在多种不同的缺陷,88%(n = 73)的评价置信度极低。只有7%(n = 6)没有AMSTAR-2关键领域缺陷。从2015年到2019年,系统评价的数量增加了五倍;然而,质量并未随时间推移而提高。
根据AMSTAR-2,这些系统评价中的大多数被认为不可靠。基于这些有缺陷的系统评价对脑瘫儿童治疗的当前建议需要重新评估。尽管人们普遍认为系统评价是高级别证据,但研究结果与医学其他领域的报告相当。作者、同行评审员和编辑必须使用当前广泛接受的系统评价开展和报告指南,这对于确保可靠、无偏倚和透明的系统评价至关重要。本文补充内容:关于脑瘫儿童干预措施的系统评价中,88%的结论置信度极低。样本中的质量问题不仅限于非随机试验的系统评价,也不限于某些脑瘫人群或干预措施的系统评价。纳入荟萃分析并未提高这些系统评价的置信水平。在这5年的检索期内,关于该主题的系统评价数量增加了,但它们的方法学质量并未提高。