Dataset Information

Common elective orthopaedic procedures and their clinical effectiveness: umbrella review of level 1 evidence.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the clinical effectiveness of common elective orthopaedic procedures compared with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care and assess the impact on clinical guidelines.

Design

Umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials or other study designs in the absence of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

Ten of the most common elective orthopaedic procedures-arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic meniscal repair of the knee, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy of the knee, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, arthroscopic subacromial decompression, carpal tunnel decompression, lumbar spine decompression, lumbar spine fusion, total hip replacement, and total knee replacement-were studied. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and bibliographies were searched until September 2020.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (or in the absence of meta-analysis other study designs) that compared the clinical effectiveness of any of the 10 orthopaedic procedures with no treatment, placebo, or non-operative care.

Data extraction and synthesis

Summary data were extracted by two independent investigators, and a consensus was reached with the involvement of a third. The methodological quality of each meta-analysis was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews instrument. The Jadad decision algorithm was used to ascertain which meta-analysis represented the best evidence. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence search was used to check whether recommendations for each procedure reflected the body of evidence.

Main outcome measures

Quality and quantity of evidence behind common elective orthopaedic interventions and comparisons with the strength of recommendations in relevant national clinical guidelines.

Results

Randomised controlled trial evidence supports the superiority of carpal tunnel decompression and total knee replacement over non-operative care. No randomised controlled trials specifically compared total hip replacement or meniscal repair with non-operative care. Trial evidence for the other six procedures showed no benefit over non-operative care.

Conclusions

Although they may be effective overall or in certain subgroups, no strong, high quality evidence base shows that many commonly performed elective orthopaedic procedures are more effective than non-operative alternatives. Despite the lack of strong evidence, some of these procedures are still recommended by national guidelines in certain situations.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42018115917.

SUBMITTER: Blom AW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8262448 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe overarching objective was to examine the effectiveness of intervention strategies to promote fruit and vegetable consumption. To do this, systematic review evidence regarding the effects of intervention strategies was synthesized; organized, where appropriate, by the setting in which the strategies were implemented. Additionally, we sought to describe gaps in the review of evidence; that is, where evidence regarding the effectiveness of recommended policy actions had not been systematically synthesised.MethodsWe undertook a systematic search of electronic databases and the grey literature to identify systematic reviews describing the effects of any intervention strategy targeting fruit and/or vegetable intake in children or adults of any age.ResultsThe effects of 32 intervention strategies were synthesised from the 19 included reviews. The strategies were mapped across all three broad domains of the NOURISHING framework (i.e. food environment, food system and behaviour change communication), but covered just 14 of the framework's 65 sub-policy areas. There was evidence supporting the effectiveness of 19 of the 32 intervention strategies. The findings of the umbrella review suggest that intervention strategies implemented within schools, childcare services, homes, workplaces and primary care can be effective, as can eHealth strategies, mass media campaigns, household food production strategies and fiscal interventions.ConclusionsA range of effective strategy options are available for policy makers and practitioners interested in improving fruit and/or vegetable intake. However, the effects of many strategies - particularly those targeting agricultural production practices, the supply chain and the broader food system - have not been reported in systematic reviews. Primary studies assessing the effects of these strategies, and the inclusion of such studies in systematic reviews, are needed to better inform national and international efforts to improve public health nutrition.Trial registrationThe review protocol was deposited in a publicly available Open Science framework prior to execution of the search strategy. https://osf.io/unj7x/.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Patients and policy makers alike have high expectations for the use of digital technologies as tools to improve health care service quality at a sustainable cost. Many countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are investing in telemedicine initiatives, and a large and growing body of peer-reviewed studies on the topic has developed, as a consequence. Nonetheless, telemedicine is still not used at scale within the OECD. Seeking to provide a snapshot of the evidence on the use of telemedicine in the OECD, this umbrella review of systematic reviews summarizes findings on four areas of policy relevance: clinical and cost-effectiveness, patient experience, and implementation. METHODS:This review followed a prior written, unregistered protocol. Four databases (PubMed/Medline, CRD, and Cochrane Library) were searched for systematic reviews or meta-analyses published between January 2014 and February 2019. Based on the inclusion criteria, 98 systematic reviews were selected for analysis. Due to substantial heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not conducted. The quality of included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. RESULTS:Most reviews (n = 53) focused on effectiveness, followed by cost-effectiveness (n = 18), implementation (n = 17) and patient experience (n = 15). Eighty-three percent of clinical effectiveness reviews found telemedicine at least as effective as face-to-face care, and thirty-nine percent of cost-effectivenss reviews found telemedicine to be cost saving or cost-effective. Patients reported high acceptance of telemedicine and the most common barriers to implementation were usability and lack of reimbursement. However, the methodological quality of most reviews was low to critically low which limits generalizability and applicability of findings. CONCLUSION:This umbrella review finds that telemedicine interventions can improve glycemic control in diabetic patients; reduce mortality and hospitalization due to chronic heart failure; help patients manage pain and increase their physical activity; improve mental health, diet quality and nutrition; and reduce exacerbations associated with respiratory diseases like asthma. In certain disease and specialty areas, telemedicine may be a less effective way to deliver care. While there is evidence that telemedicine can be cost-effective, generalizability is hindered by poor quality and reporting standards. This umbrella review also finds that patients report high levels of acceptance and satisfaction with telemedicine interventions, but that important barriers to wider use remain.