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

Autor:	Cavalcante MC; MD. Physician, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Discipline of Hand and Upper Limb Surgery, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil., Moraes VY; MD, PhD. Professor, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Discipline of Hand and Upper Limb Surgery, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil., Osés GL; MD. Physician, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Discipline of Hand and Upper Limb Surgery, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil., Nakachima LR; MD, PhD. Professor, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Discipline of Hand and Upper Limb Surgery, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil., Belloti JC; MD, MSc, PhD. Adjunct Professor, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Discipline of Hand and Upper Limb Surgery, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina [Sao Paulo Med J] 2022 Dec 19; Vol. 141 (5), pp. e20211020. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Dec 19 (Print Publication: 2022).
DOI:	10.1590/1516-3180.2021.1020.R2.10102022
Abstrakt:	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).
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu