Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF CONFLICTING META-ANALYSES IN ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY



Abstract

Introduction: Meta-analyses are an important instrument in orthopaedic surgery, not only to create clinical guidelines, but also because their findings are included in public health and health policy decision-making. Generally, meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials are considered as the highest level of evidence. However, with increasing numbers of meta-analyses, discordance and frank conflicts in results have been seen, which might lead to grave complications considering the aforementioned facts. The purpose of this study was to search for conflicting meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery, i.e. such arriving at different conclusions despite following the same research question; to identify potential reasons for, and to assess the actual amount and significance of such differences.

Methods: We searched the online databases PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register for orthopaedic meta-analyses and cross-referenced results within and across databases to identify meta-analyses focusing on the same subject. Meta-analyses were defined as conflicting if they arrived at different results despite studying the same populations.

To assess the significance of such difference we used Cochrane’s Q-test. To test the amount, thus clinical meaning, of differences we calculated the I2-index, the amount of difference beyond random chance. Since both these parameters depend on study size, we also calculated the “uncertainty interval” (UI), which, in accordance to the 95% confidence interval contains the true I2-index of the whole population.

Results: We were able to identify conflicting meta-analyses on graft choice in ACL reconstruction (n=7), the use of hyaluronic acid (n=5) and pulsed electromagnetic fields in osteoarthritis (n=2). Significant differences could only be shown among meta-analyses on hyaluronic acid (p< 0.001). The uncertainty intervals were 38.6% to 78.6% for hyaluronic acid, 0% to 41.1% for ACL and 0% to 99% for electromagnetic fields in osteoarthritis.

Discussion: There are conflicting meta-analyses in orthopaedic research, posing a threat to evidence-based treatments. It seems, however, that a considerable amount of conflict derives from differences in the interpretation of pooled results rather than from the results themselves. In summary, findings and interpretations of meta-analyses should be as critically scrutinized as in any other type of study and subjected to re-assessment if deemed necessary.

Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: office@efort.org