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

Abstract

AbstractPurposeThere remains a lack of consensus around autograft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), though there is a large body of overlapping systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. Systematic reviews and their methodological quality were aimed to be further assessed, using a validated tool known as assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR‐2).MethodsMEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 23 April 2023 for systematic reviews (with/without meta‐analysis) comparing primary ACLR autografts. A final quality rating from AMSTAR‐2 was provided for each study (‘critically low’, ‘low’, ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ quality). Correlational analyses were conducted for ratings in relation to study characteristics.ResultsTwo thousand five hundred and ninety‐eight studies were screened, and 50 studies were ultimately included. Twenty‐four studies (48%) were rated as ‘critically low’, 17 (34%) as ‘low’, seven (14%) as ‘moderate’ and two (4%) as ‘high’ quality. The least followed domains were reporting on sources of funding (1/50 studies), the impact of risk of bias on results of meta‐analyses (11/36 studies) and publication bias (17/36 studies). There was a significant increase in the frequency of studies graded as ‘moderate’ compared to ‘low’ or ‘critically low’ quality over time (p = 0.020).ConclusionThe methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing autografts in ACLR is low, with many studies being rated lower due to commonly absent aspects of systematic review methodology such as investigating sources of funding and publication bias. More recent studies were generally more likely to be of higher quality. Authors are advised to consult AMSTAR‐2 prior to conducting systematic reviews in ACLR.Level of Evidence: Level IV.