scholarly journals Do Reporting Guidelines Have an Impact? Empirical Assessment of Changes in Reporting Before and After the PRISMA Extension Statement for Network Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Areti Angeliki Veroniki ◽  
Sofia Tsokani ◽  
Stella Zevgiti ◽  
Irene Pagkalidou ◽  
Katerina-Maria Kontouli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Horizon 2020 ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Canada Research Chair ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Factor Type ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items in total: 27 core items as indicated in the core 2009 PRISMA Statement and five additional items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although reporting of NMAs is improving, it is unclear whether the PRISMA-NMA statement has accelerated this improvement. Our aim was to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA statement and highlight key items that require further attention and improvement.Methods: We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and online supplements, using the PRISMA-NMA checklist. We also prepared a modified version of the PRISMA-NMA checklist with 49 items to evaluate separately at a more granular level all multiple-content items. We compared average reporting scores of articles published before and after 2015.Results: In the 1,144 included NMAs the mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 (95% CI 31.8-32.4). For one-year increase the mean modified score increased by 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.59) for 389 NMAs published until 2015 and by 0.53 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.04) for 755 NMAs published after 2015. The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score for NMAs published after 2015 was higher by 0.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.39) compared to before 2015 when adjusting for journal impact factor, type of review, funding, and treatment category. Description of summary effect sizes to be used, presentation of individual study data, sources of funding for the systematic review and role of funders dropped in frequency after 2015 by 6-16%.Conclusions: NMAs published after 2015 more frequently reported the five items associated with NMA compared to those published before 2015. However, improvement in reporting after 2015 is compatible with that observed on a yearly basis before 2015 and hence it could not be attributed solely to the publication of PRISMA-NMA statement. Funding: This research study received no funding. AAV, ST, SZ, KMK, and DM were funded from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 [No. 754936]. AN, TP and GS have been supported by SNSF grant agreement 320030_179158. SES is funded by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation. ACT is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis.

scholarly journals Do reporting guidelines have an impact? Empirical assessment of changes in reporting before and after the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Areti Angeliki Veroniki ◽  
Sofia Tsokani ◽  
Stella Zevgiti ◽  
Irene Pagkalidou ◽  
Katerina-Maria Kontouli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Point Scale ◽  
Summary Effect ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Factor Type ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement. Methods We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and online supplements, using the PRISMA-NMA checklist. The PRISMA-NMA checklist originally includes 32 total items (i.e. a 32-point scale original PRISMA-NMA score). We also prepared a modified version of the PRISMA-NMA checklist with 49 items to evaluate separately at a more granular level all multiple-content items (i.e. a 49-point scale modified PRISMA-NMA score). We compared average reporting scores of articles published until and after 2015. Results In the 1144 included NMAs the mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 (95% CI 31.8–32.4) of a possible 49-excellence-score. For 1-year increase, the mean modified score increased by 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.59) for 389 NMAs published until 2015 and by 0.53 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.04) for 755 NMAs published after 2015. The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score for NMAs published after 2015 was higher by 0.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.39) compared to before 2015 when adjusting for journal impact factor, type of review, funding, and treatment category. Description of summary effect sizes to be used, presentation of individual study data, sources of funding for the systematic review, and role of funders dropped in frequency after 2015 by 6–16%. Conclusions NMAs published after 2015 more frequently reported the five items associated with NMA compared to those published until 2015. However, improvement in reporting after 2015 is compatible with that observed on a yearly basis until 2015, and hence, it could not be attributed solely to the publication of the PRISMA-NMA.

scholarly journals Management of haemorrhoids: protocol of an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e035287
Author(s):  
Min Chen ◽  
Tai-Chun Tang ◽  
Tao-Hong He ◽  
Yong-Jun Du ◽  
Di Qin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionThe prevalence of haemorrhoidal diseases was high in general population, and many treatments are proposed for the management of haemorrhoids. The treatments include conservative and surgical interventions; the credibility and strength of current evidence of their effectiveness are not comprehensively evaluated. We aim to evaluate the credibility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that assess the effectiveness of the treatments for haemorrhoidal diseases through an umbrella review.Methods and analysisWe will search Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science from inception to March 2020 without any language restriction. We will include meta-analyses that examine the effectiveness of treatments in the management of haemorrhoids. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of retrieved articles, and they will extract data from the included meta-analyses. For each meta-analysis, we will estimate the effect size of a treatment through the random-effect model and the fixed-effect model, and we will evaluate between-study heterogeneity (Cochrane’s Q and I2statistics) and small-study effect (Egger’s test); we will also estimate the evidence of excess significance bias. Evidence of each treatment will be graded according to prespecified criteria. Methodological quality of each meta-analysis will be evaluated by using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2. The corrected cover area method will be used to assess the impact of overlap in reviews on the findings of the umbrella review.Ethics and disseminationWe will present the results of the umbrella review at conferences and publish the final report in a peer-reviewed journal. The umbrella review does not require ethical approval.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019140702.

scholarly journals Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II

2014 ◽  
Vol 133 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valter Silva ◽  
Antonio Jose Grande ◽  
Alan Pedrosa Viegas de Carvalho ◽  
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽  
Rachel Riera
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
New Type ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
General Profile

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new type of study in which multiple evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) is compiled into an accessible and useful document. The aim here was to describe the state of the art and critically assess Cochrane OoRs that have been published.DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted at a research center.METHODS: The OoRs identified through the filter developed in Part I of this study were evaluated in five domains: methodological quality; quality of evidence; implications for practice; general profile of OoRs; and length of work.RESULTS: All 13 OoRs included had high methodological quality. Some OoRs did not present sufficient data to judge the quality of evidence; using sensitivity analysis, the quality of evidence of the OoRs increased. Regarding implications for practice, 64% of the interventions were judged as beneficial or harmful, while 36% of them showed insufficient evidence for judgment. It is expected (with 95% confidence interval) that one OoR will include 9,462 to 64,469 patients, 9 to 29 systematic reviews and 80 to 344 primary studies, and assess 6 to 21 interventions; and that 50 to 92% of OoRs will produce meta-analysis. The OoRs generated 2 to 26 meta-analyses over a period of 18 to 31 months.CONCLUSION: The OoRs presented high methodological quality; the quality of evidence tended to be moderate/high; most interventions were judged to be beneficial/harmful; the mean length of work was 24 months. The OoR profile adds power to decision-making.

scholarly journals Impact and use of reviews and ‘overviews of reviews’ to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e031442
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Cynthia Ramasubbu ◽  
Savannah Gerrish ◽  
Tracy Liu ◽  
Douglas M Salzwedel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionGuidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. High quality and comprehensive systematic reviews and ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ (overviews) represent the best available evidence. Many guideline developers, such as the WHO and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, recommend the use of these research syntheses to underpin guideline recommendations. We aim to evaluate the impact and use of systematic reviews with and without pairwise meta-analysis or network meta-analyses (NMAs) and overviews in clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations.Methods and analysisCPGs will be retrieved from Turning Research Into Practice and Epistemonikos (2017–2018). The retrieved citations will be sorted randomly and then screened sequentially by two independent reviewers until 50 CPGs have been identified. We will include CPGs that provide at least two explicit recommendations for the management of any clinical condition. We will assess whether reviews or overviews were cited in a recommendation as part of the development process for guidelines. Data extraction will be done independently by two authors and compared. We will assess the risk of bias by examining how each guideline developed clinical recommendations. We will calculate the number and frequency of citations of reviews with or without pairwise meta-analysis, reviews with NMAs and overviews, and whether they were systematically or non-systematically developed. Results will be described, tabulated and categorised based on review type (reviews or overviews). CPGs reporting the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be compared with those using a different system, and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological CPGs will be compared.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required. We will present at the Cochrane Colloquium and the Guidelines International Network conference.

scholarly journals There is still room for improvement in the completeness of abstract reporting according to the PRISMA-A checklist: a cross-sectional study on systematic reviews in periodontology

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Milagros Adobes Martin ◽  
Sala Santamans Faustino ◽  
Inmaculada Llario Almiñana ◽  
Riccardo Aiuto ◽  
Roberto Rotundo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Analysis Group ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Abstract Reporting ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Abstract Background To evaluate the completeness of reporting abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) before and after the publication of the PRISMA-A checklist in 2013 and to assess if an association exists between abstract characteristics and the completeness of reporting. Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the PubMed and Scopus databases in March 2020. The search focused on the SRs of evaluations of interventions published since 2002 in the field of periodontology. The abstracts of the selected SRs were divided into two groups before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist in 2013, and compliance with the 12 items reported in the checklist was evaluated by three calibrated evaluators. Results A set of 265 abstracts was included in the study. The total score before (mean score, 53.78%; 95% CI, 51.56–55.90%) and after (mean score, 56.88%; 95% CI, 55.39–58.44%) the publication of the PRISMA-A statement exhibited a statistically significant improvement (P = 0.012*). Nevertheless, only the checklist items included studies and synthesis of the results displayed a statistically significant change after guideline publication. The total PRISMA-A score was higher in the meta-analysis group and in articles authored by more than four authors. Conclusions The impact of the PRISMA-A was statistically significant, but the majority of the items did not improve after its introduction. The editors and referees of periodontal journals should promote adherence to the checklist to improve the quality of the reports and provide readers with better insight into the characteristics of published studies.

scholarly journals Understanding loneliness: a systematic review of the impact of social prescribing initiatives on loneliness

2021 ◽  
pp. 175791392096704
Author(s):  
GY Reinhardt ◽  
D Vidovic ◽  
C Hammerton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Outpatient Services ◽  
Social Prescribing ◽  
Positive Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Aims: The aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the impact of social prescribing (SP) programmes on loneliness among participants and the population. Methods: We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search EBSCOHost (CINAHL Complete, eBook Collection, E-Journals, MEDLINE with Full Text, Open Dissertations, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Web of Science Core Collection, and grey literature. We included studies measuring the effectiveness and impact of SP programmes in terms of loneliness. We excluded systematic reviews and studies without evaluations. Due to the absence of confidence intervals and the low number of studies, we conduct no meta-analysis. Results: From 4415 unique citations, nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies do not use uniform measures or randomised samples. All nine studies report positive individual impacts; three report reductions in general practitioner (GP), A&E, social worker, or inpatient/outpatient services; and one shows that belonging to a group reduces loneliness and healthcare usage. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review indicate that individuals and service providers view SP as a helpful tool to address loneliness. However, evidence variability and the small number of studies make it difficult to draw a conclusion on the extent of the impact and the pathways to achieving positive change. More research is needed into the impact of SP programmes on participants, populations, and communities in terms of loneliness, isolation, and connectedness, especially in light of the surge in SP activity as a key part of pandemic response.

scholarly journals Effects of Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) on VO2max: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Pérez-Gómez ◽  
Santos Villafaina ◽  
José Carmelo Adsuar ◽  
Eugenio Merellano-Navarro ◽  
Daniel Collado-Mateo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Withania Somnifera ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Grade Approach

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the scientific literature about the effects of supplementation with Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) on maximum oxygen consumption (VO2max), as well as to provide directions for clinical practice. A systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Guidelines (PRISMA). The inclusion criteria were: (a) VO2max data, with means ± standard deviation before and after the supplement intervention, (b) the study was randomized controlled trial (RCT), (c) the article was written in English. The quality of evidence was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A meta-analysis was performed to determine effect sizes. Five studies were selected in the systematic review (162 participants) and four were included in the meta-analysis (142 participants). Results showed a significant enhancement in VO2max in healthy adults and athletes (p = 0.04). The mean difference was 3.00 (95% CI from 0.18 to 5.82) with high heterogeneity. In conclusion, Ashwagandha supplementation might improve the VO2max in athlete and non-athlete people. However, further research is need to confirm this hypothesis since the number of studies is limited and the heterogeneity was high.

scholarly journals Impact of treatment as usual on efficacy estimates of face-to-face and internet-based psychotherapy for depression: A pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Munder ◽  
Alessia Geisshüsler ◽  
Tobias Krieger ◽  
Johannes Zimmermann ◽  
Markus Wolf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Treatment As Usual ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Background: Treatment as usual (TAU) is the most frequently used control group in randomised trials of psychotherapy for depression and meta-analyses that summarise these trials. Concerns have been raised over imprecise and biased efficacy estimates because of substantial variability in the treatments provided in TAU. We set out to investigate the impact of the control group intensity (i.e., quantitative and qualitative aspects of treatments in control groups) on results of trials of psychotherapy for depression and confounding due to systematic differences in this intensity in trials of face-to-face (F2F) and internet-based (INT) psychotherapy.Methods: We conducted a pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PsycINFO for systematic reviews of psychotherapy for depression from Jan 1, 2015 to Jan 3, 2020 and retrieved all references of trials included in these systematic reviews. We searched Cochrane’s Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO for randomised trials from Jan 1, 2018 to Jan 3, 2020. We included trials that compared (individual or group) F2F or (self-guided or guided) INT with TAU or waiting list (WL) in the acute treatment of patients with symptoms of unipolar depression. We excluded trials published before 2000. All information was extracted by two independent researchers. Six dichotomous indicators were used to create a score that expressed the intensity of TAU and WL. Primary outcome: Standardised mean differences (SMD) of treatment and control groups in depressive symptoms at treatment termination. SMDs were extracted from trial reports. A protocol was pre-registered with the Center for Open Science (www.osf.io/4mzyd).Findings: We included 89 eligible trials that randomised 14,474 patients to 113 eligible psychotherapy arms (8,284 patients) and 89 control arms (6,190 patients). TAU was used as control group in 42 trials (47.19%) and WL in 47 trials (52.81%). F2F was investigated in 37 trials (42.05%) and INT in 51 trials (57.95%). Intensity of control groups did not differ between F2F trials (M = 0.86, SD = 1.42) and INT trials (M = 0.39, SD = 0.63, p = .255). Intensity of control group was a significant predictor of trial results in the main analysis (one-sided p = .042), in pre-registered sensitivity analyses, and in all further exploratory analyses. Heterogeneity estimates were high (I2 = 69.30% to 95.37%). The final analysis found psychotherapy effects to be SMD = -0.287 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.483 to -0.091, one-sided p = .002, I2 = 76.13%) smaller in 24 trials with higher intensity TAU compared to 16 trials with lower intensity TAU. Interpretation: Our findings suggest that the variability of treatments in TAU influences the results of trials on psychotherapy for depression and is likely to introduce imprecision into meta-analyses of these trials. Source of funding: None

What Is the Impact of Different Glucose-lowering Agents for Atrial Fibrillation Risk: A Systematic Review and a Network Meta-analysis 

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wence Shi ◽  
Zhang Wenchang ◽  
Gao Lihua ◽  
Ding Chunhua
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Glucose Lowering ◽  
Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 ◽  
Clinical Endpoints ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Diabetes Patients

Abstract Background: The emergence of new glucose-lowering agents has brought revolutionary changes to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Diabetes is associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) progression, while whether or not glucose-lowering agents would bring a reduction of AF/AFL is not clear. We therefore evaluate the effect of different glucose-lowering agents on AF/AFL and made this network meta-analysis to identify the optimal treatment for diabetes patients to reduce AF/AFL events.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until September 30 2020, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used in this network meta-analysis. The primary endpoint for our study was AF or AFL events. Only studies with a follow-up period of at least 12 months and reporting AF/AFL as clinical endpoints were included. Results from trials were presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled using a bayesian random-effects model.Results: 5 eligible studies (9 glucose-lowering agents were analyzed including thiazolidinedione[TZD], metformin[Met], sulfonylurea[SU], insulin[Insu], dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor[DPP-4i], glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist[GLP-1RA], sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor[SGLT2i], alpha glucosidase inhibitor[AGI], and non-sulfonylurea[nSU]) consisting of 263583 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. Pooled results show that GLP1-RA, when compared to Met (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.61), SU (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.73), Insu (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.86), and nSU (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.66) significantly reduce AF/AFL events. In addition, DPP-4i could also reduce AF/AFL events when compared with nSU (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.92).Conclusion: The finding of our study indicated that GLP1-RA could be optimal glucose-lowering agent for diabetes patients to prevents AF/AFL. Met and insulin-providing therapy (insulin, sulfonylurea, or non- sulfonylurea) should be avoided to patients with high risk of AF/AFL.Trial registration: We have registered in PROSPERO (international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020212994) for this network meta-analysis

scholarly journals Trapeziectomy for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-149
Author(s):  
Marc Saab ◽  
Gregoire Chick
Keyword(s):  
Grip Strength ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Metacarpophalangeal Joint ◽  
Modest Improvement ◽  
Mechanical Complications ◽  
Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Aims The objective of this systematic review was to describe trapeziectomy outcomes and complications in the context of osteoarthritis of the base of the thumb after a five-year minimum follow-up. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to guide study design, and 267 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion criteria application, 22 studies were included, involving 728 patients and 823 trapeziectomies. Outcomes included pre- and postoperative clinical and radiological characteristics. Complications and revisions were recorded. Results All the studies reported good results regarding pain and range of motion at the last follow-up of 8.3 years (5 to 22); the mean satisfaction rate was 91% (84% to 100%). It was difficult to assess the impact on metacarpophalangeal joint motion in extension with contrary results. The key pinch returned to its preoperative values, whereas tip pinch showed a modest improvement (+14%), with a mild improvement found in grip strength (+25%) at the last follow-up. The mean progressive trapezial collapse was 48% (0% to 85%) and was not correlated with pain, grip strength, or satisfaction. The most represented complications were linked to tendons or nerves affected during additional procedures to stabilize the joint (11.6%; n = 56). Mechanical complications included symptomatic scapho-M1 impingement (3.1%; n = 15/580), leading to nine surgical revisions out of 581 trapeziectomies. Meta-analysis was not possible due to study heterogeneity and limited data. Conclusion After a minimum five-year follow-up, trapeziectomy achieved high patient satisfaction and pain relief. However, strength seemed to be deteriorating with detrimental consequences, but this did not correlate with trapezial collapse. The issues related to underestimating mechanical complications and varying degrees of success should be highlighted in the information given to patients. Evidence-based analyses should help the surgeon in their decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(3):141–149.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document