Qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas sobre o tratamento de osteoartrite com plasma rico em plaquetas: Um estudo de metapesquisa

Resumo

Objetivo Avaliar a qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas acerca dos benefícios e malefícios do plasma rico em plaquetas (PRP) no tratamento da osteoartrite.

Métodos Realizou-se uma busca abrangente na literatura, e a qualidade metodológica das revisões incluídas foi avaliada usando a ferramenta A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, Version 2 (AMSTAR-2). Além disso, a avaliação da certeza da evidência usando a abordagem Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) foi investigada. Ao todo, 31 revisões sistemáticas atenderam aos critérios de inclusão.

Resultados A classificação geral de qualidade foi criticamente baixa em quase 84% dos artigos, e baixa em 16,1%. Os critérios metodológicos relatados de forma inadequada com mais frequência estavam relacionados às estratégias de busca, com 77,3% das respostas “não” ou “parcialmente sim”, e os motivos para a exclusão de estudos, que não foram descritos em 100% das revisões. Além disso, 42% não mencionaram o cadastro de seus protocolos, 13% não usaram a ferramenta de qualidade metodológica apropriada para a avaliação do risco de viés dos estudos clínicos incluídos, 45,2% não consideraram o risco de viés na discussão dos resultados, e 32,26% não relataram ou planejaram relatar o viés de publicação. A abordagem GRADE somente foi usada em 19,3% das revisões.

Conclusão Apesar do alto número de revisões sistemáticas sobre o tratamento de osteoartrite com PRP, neste estudo de metapesquisa, identificou-se que a maioria não é conduzida adequadamente, e apresenta falhas metodológicas que podem afetar a confiabilidade dos achados clínicos.

Palavras-chave

osteoartrite - plasma rico em plaquetas - revisão sistemática

Contribuições dos Autores

Cada autora contribuiu individual e significativamente para o desenvolvimento deste artigo: MEOO, KMMS, MLS, MES, EMS e ALCM contribuíram para a validação, visualização, pesquisa, curadoria de dados, redação – rascunho original, e redação – revisão e edição. MEOO, KMMS e MES contribuíram para a conceitualização. ALCM e EMS trabalharam principalmente na análise formal e na metodologia.

Suporte Financeiro

Os autores declaram que não receberam suporte financeiro de agências dos setores público, privado ou sem fins lucrativos para a realização deste estudo.

Estudo desenvolvido na Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Metropolitana de Santos, Santos, SP, Brasil.

Publication History

Received: 17 August 2024

Accepted: 09 January 2025

Article published online:
28 April 2025

• Referências

• 1 Bennell KL, Hunter DJ, Paterson KL. Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Management of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2017; 19 (05) 24
• 2 Shirokova K, Gorokhkova V, Shirokova L. The impact of the administration of PRP and disease-modifying therapy on the synovial environment, general health and treatment efficacy in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019; 27 (01) 502-503
• 3 Rodríguez-Merchán EC. Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Review of Their Current Molecular Mechanisms of Action and Their Degree of Efficacy. Int J Mol Sci 2022; 23 (03) 1301
• 4 Tonutti A, Granata V, Marrella V. et al. The role of WNT and IL-1 signaling in osteoarthritis: therapeutic implications for platelet-rich plasma therapy. Front Aging 2023; 4: 1201019
• 5 Liu-Bryan R. Synovium and the innate inflammatory network in osteoarthritis progression. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2013; 15 (05) 323
• 6 Page MJ, Moher D. Mass Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: An Exercise in Mega-silliness?. Milbank Q 2016; 94 (03) 515-519
• 7 Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q 2016; 94 (03) 485-514
• 8 Zhang Z. Meta-epidemiological study: a step-by-step approach by using R. J Evid Based Med 2016; 9 (02) 91-97
• 9 Roever L. Understanding Meta-Epidemiological Studies. Int J Cardiovasc Sci 2016; 29 (04) 326-328
• 10 Tsujimoto Y, Tsujimoto H, Kataoka Y. et al. Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 2017; 84: 54-60
• 11 Christensen R. Meta-research: A bird's eye view of OA. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25 (01) 2-3
• 12 Yamamoto N, Taito S, Miura T. et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Orthopedic Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study. J Clin Med 2023; 12 (22) 7031
• 13 Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evid Based Med 2017; 22 (04) 139-142
• 14 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372 (71) n71
• 15 Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5 (01) 210
• 16 Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J. et al; GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 2008; 336 (7653): 1106-1110
• 17 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008
• 18 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D. et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17 (01) 1-12
• 19 Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. London, England: Cochrane Collaboration; 2011
• 20 Coleman BD, Khan KM, Maffulli N, Cook JL, Wark JD. Victorian Institute of Sport Tendon Study Group. Studies of surgical outcome after patellar tendinopathy: clinical significance of methodological deficiencies and guidelines for future studies. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2000; 10 (01) 2-11
• 21 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898
• 22 Zuo W, Guo W, Ma J, Cui W. Dose adductor canal block combined with local infiltration analgesia has a synergistic effect than adductor canal block alone in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14 (01) 101
• 23 Cowan J, Lozano-Calderón S, Ring D. Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials. Analysis of trials of treatment for lateral epicondylitis as an example. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (08) 1693-1699
• 24 Handoll H, Elstub L, Elliott J. et al. Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. About the Cochrane collab oration (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGS). 2008;Issue 4. Art. No: MUSKINJ.
• 25 Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C. et al. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev 2017; 6 (01) 131
• 26 Bero L, Busuttil G, Farquhar C. et al. Measuring the performance of the Cochrane library. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 12 (11) ED000048
• 27 Chandler J, Hopewell S. Cochrane methods–twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Syst Rev 2013; 2: 76
• 28 Useem J, Brennan A, LaValley M. et al. Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10 (12) e0144980
• 29 Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG. et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med 2016; 13 (05) e1002028
• 30 Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 7
• 31 Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA. et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 2014; 383 (9912): 166-175
• 32 Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP. et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53 (09) 964-972
• 33 Cortegiani A, Absalom AR. Importance of proper conduct of clinical trials. Br J Anaesth 2021; 126 (02) 354-356
• 34 Cooper C, Booth A, Varley-Campbell J, Britten N, Garside R. Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18 (01) 85
• 35 Cooper C, Booth A, Britten N, Garside R. A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review. Syst Rev 2017; 6 (01) 234
• 36 Hartling L, Ospina M, Liang Y. et al. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study. BMJ 2009; 339: b4012
• 37 Gagnier JJ, Kellam PJ. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (11) e771-e777
• 38 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE. et al; GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336 (7650): 924-926