The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses assessing the effects of ankle–foot orthosis on clinical outcomes in stroke patients: A methodological systematic review

Abstract

Background and Aims Given the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers, it is essential to assess them to ensure robust methodology and reliable results before applying them. The purpose of this methodological study was to assess the methodological and reporting quality of recently published SRs and/or meta‐analyses (MAs) evaluating the effects of ankle–foot orthoses (AFOs) on clinical outcomes in stroke survivors. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, CENTRAL, REHABDATA, and PEDro were searched. The research team applied A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR‐2) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) checklist for evaluating the reporting and methodological quality, respectively, and the ROBIS tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias (RoB) in the included reviews. The quality of the evidence was also judged using the (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) GRADE method. Results In final, 14 SRs/MAs met inclusion criteria. Evaluation of methodological quality using the AMSTAR‐2 tool demonstrated that the overall quality of included reviews was mostly “critically low” or “low,” except for two studies that were “high.” In addition, the findings showed that the mean score of the reporting quality of the included reviews based on the PRISMA criteria was 24.9, down from 42. In accordance with the overall evaluation applying the ROBIS tool, 14.3% of the review studies were evaluated as high RoB, 64.3% were evaluated as unclear RoB, and 21.4% were evaluated as low RoB. Regarding the level of evidence quality, the GRADE results indicated that the evidence quality of the included reviews was unsatisfactory. Conclusion This study showed that although the reporting quality of recently published SR/MAs evaluating the clinical effects of AFOs in stroke survivors was moderate, the methodological quality of almost all reviews was suboptimal. Therefore, reviewers must consider a number of criteria in designing, conducting, and reporting their studies to move toward transparent and conclusive results.

Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews of comparative studies in autograft‐based anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the AMSTAR‐2 tool: A systematic umbrella review

“…This domain was achieved by a similarly low rate of studies in the review by Wu et al on the quality of THA/TKA systematic reviews in comparison to our study (32% vs. 48%) [71]. Studies using AMSTAR-2 outside of orthopaedic surgery have also reported similar rates, such as a review conducted by Shahabi et al in the area of stroke rehabilitation (21% of their included studies) [63]. Publication bias occurs when studies on a particular topic are more often published when they yield certain outcomes (e.g., significant results), which can impact the overall sentiment of the evidence as unpublished studies may represent contradictory results [70].…”