Quality analysis of prior systematic reviews of carpal tunnel syndrome: an overview of the literature

• Autor(a) principal: Cavalcante,Marcelo Cortês
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: Moraes,Vinicius Ynoe de, Osés,Guilherme Ladeira, Nakachima,Luis Renato, Belloti,João Carlos
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: São Paulo medical journal (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802022005031298
• topic: Evidence-based medicine; Quality control; Carpal tunnel syndrome; Quality; Systematics reviews; PRISMA

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common condition greatly affects patients’ quality of life and ability to work. Systematic reviews provide useful information for treatment and health decisions. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the methodological quality of previously published systematic reviews on the treatment of CTS. DESIGN AND SETTING: Overview of systematic reviews conducted at the Brazilian public higher education institution, São Paulo, Brazil METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library database for systematic reviews investigating the treatment of CTS in adults. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) were applied by two independent examiners. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were included. Considering the stratification within the AMSTAR measurement tool, we found that more than 76% of the analyzed studies were “low” or “very low”. PRISMA scores were higher when meta-analysis was present (15.61 versus 10.40; P = 0.008), while AMSTAR scores were higher when studies performed meta-analysis (8.43 versus 5.59; P = 0.009) or when they included randomized controlled trials (7.95 versus 6.06; P = 0.043). The intra-observer correlation demonstrated perfect agreement (> 0.8), a Spearman’s correlation coefficient of 0.829, and an ICC of0.857. The inter-observer correlation indicated that AMSTAR was more reliable than PRISMA. CONCLUSION: Overall, systematic reviews of the treatment of CTS are of poor quality. Reviews with better-quality conducted meta-analysis and included randomized controlled trials. AMSTAR is a better tool than PRISMA because it has a better performance and should be recommended in future studies. REGISTRATION NUMBER IN PROSPERO: CRD42020172328 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172328)