Kotlier Jacob L, Kumaran Pranit, Fathi Amir, Yazditabar Joshua M, Lin Eric H, Mayfield Cory K, Petrigliano Frank A, Liu Joseph N
Keck School of Medicine of USC, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Keck School of Medicine of USC, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Knee. 2025 Mar;53:183-192. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2024.12.013. Epub 2025 Jan 8.
To present rates of reporting bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating meniscal root repair.
In this systematic review, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases were queried for studies that investigated meniscal root tears treated with root repair. Included studies were systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses published in peer-reviewed journals in the English language with available full-texts. Each abstract was graded in a binary fashion for 15 most severe types of spin. Fisher's exact test was used to determine if spin varied significantly by year, journal, level of evidence, funding source, or A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2) confidence category.
Twenty studies were included. All abstracts exhibited spin with a maximum of eight types of spin. The most prevalent categories of spin were "Misleading Reporting" (n = 18), "Inappropriate Extrapolation" (n = 13), and "Misleading Interpretation" (n = 12). There were significant associations between external funding and spin types: 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") (p = 0.019), 9 ("Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias") (p < 0.001), and 15 ("Conclusion extrapolates the review's findings to a different population or setting") (p = 0.049). AMSTAR 2 confidence rating was either "low" (n = 2) or "critically low" (n = 18) in all 20 studies.
This study demonstrated a high prevalence of reporting bias in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating meniscal root repair, with significant associations with external funding.
呈现系统评价和荟萃分析中关于半月板根部修复研究的报告偏倚发生率。
在本系统评价中，检索了PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science数据库，以查找研究半月板根部撕裂并采用根部修复治疗的研究。纳入的研究为发表在同行评审期刊上的英文系统评价和/或荟萃分析，且有全文可用。对每篇摘要就15种最严重的偏倚类型进行二元评分。采用Fisher精确检验来确定偏倚是否因年份、期刊、证据水平、资金来源或评估系统评价的测量工具第2版（AMSTAR 2）置信类别而有显著差异。
纳入20项研究。所有摘要均存在偏倚，最多有8种偏倚类型。最常见的偏倚类别为“误导性报告”（n = 18）、“不适当外推”（n = 13）和“误导性解释”（n = 12）。外部资金与偏倚类型之间存在显著关联：偏倚类型5（“尽管原始研究存在高偏倚风险，但结论声称实验性治疗具有有益效果”）（p = 0.019）、偏倚类型9（“尽管存在报告偏倚，但结论声称实验性治疗具有有益效果”）（p < 0.001）和偏倚类型15（“结论将综述结果外推至不同人群或环境”）（p = 0.049）。在所有20项研究中，AMSTAR 2置信评级为“低”（n = 2）或“极低”（n = 18）。
本研究表明，在关于半月板根部修复的系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中，报告偏倚的发生率很高，且与外部资金存在显著关联。
