gms | German Medical Science

Objectives/Interrogation: Many systematic reviews (SRs) have been published about the various treatments for distal radius fractures (DRF). The heterogeneity of SRs results may come from the misuse of SR methods, and literature overviews have demonstrated that SRs should be considered with caution as they may not always be synonymous with high-quality standards. Our objective is to evaluate the quality of published SRs on the treatment of DRF through these tools.

Methods: The methods utilized in this review were previously published in the PROSPERO database. We performed an analysis (of the current literature) of 41 SRs of surgical and nonsurgical interventions for acute DRF in adults. A comprehensive search strategy was performed in the MEDLINE database and we manually searched the grey literature for non-indexed research. Data were independently extracted by two authors. We assessed SR internal validity and reporting using AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes). Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted article characteristics and provided Spearman's correlation measurements.

Results and Conclusions: Forty-one articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The mean score for PRISMA was 15.90 (CI 95%, 13.9 - 17.89) and AMSTAR was 6.48 (CI 95% 5.72 - 7.23). SRs that considered only RCTs had better AMSTAR [7.56 (2.1) vs. 5.62 (2.3); p=0.014] and PRISMA scores [18.61 (5.22) vs. 13.93 (6.47), p=0.027]. The presence of meta- analysis on the SRs altered PRISMA scores [19.17 (4.75) vs. 10.21 (4.51), p=0.001] and AMSTAR scores [7.68 (1.9) vs. 4.39 (1.66), p=0.001]. Journal impact fator or declaration of conflict of interest did not change PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. We found substantial inter observer agreement for PRISMA (0.82, 95% CI 0.62 - 0.94; p=0.01) and AMSTAR (0.65, 95% CI 0.43 - 0.81; p=0.01), and moderate correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR scores (0.83, 95% CI 0.62 - 0.92; p=0.01). We conclude that DRF RCT-only SRs have better PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. These tools have substantial inter-observer agreement and moderate inter-tool correlation. We exposed the current research panorama and pointed out some factors that can contribute to improvements on the topic.