RESUMEN

Aim: Our objectives are: to evaluate the completeness of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) on platelet-rich plasma therapy; to assess the overall methodological quality of the SR using AMSTAR-2 tool; to assess harms reporting overlap in primary studies between SRs. Materials & methods: The authors searched five database systems for relevant literature on platelet rich plasma therapy. The authors screened and extracted in masked, duplicate fashion. Results: All SRs reported less than 50% completeness in harms reporting. The most frequently reported item was harms being stated in the abstract or title (26/103, 25.2%). AMSTAR-2 assessed 96 SRs as 'critically low', 6 SRs as 'low' and 1 'moderate'. Conclusion: Our study highlights that reporting of harms should become more standardized and transparent.

This study looked at how well the negative effects (harms) of platelet-rich plasma therapy are reported in systematic reviews (SRs). The researchers carefully reviewed and extracted data of SRs from different databases. They found that less than 50% of the SRs reported the harms associated with platelet rich plasma therapy. The researchers also used a tool called AMSTAR to assess the value of each of the SRs, and most were found to be 'critically low' reviews. In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of platelet rich plasma therapy negative effect reporting by SRs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Health inequities have been shown to have negative effects on patient care and the healthcare system. It is important for orthopaedic trauma surgeons and researchers to understand the extent to which patients are affected by these inequities. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review as outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. We searched PubMed and Ovid Embase for articles relating to orthopaedic trauma surgery and health inequities. RESULTS: After exclusion criteria were applied, our final sample consisted of 52 studies. The most frequently evaluated inequities were sex (43 of 52 [82.7]), race/ethnicity (23 of 52 [44.2]), and income status (17 of 52 [32.7]). The least frequently evaluated inequities were lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer identity (0 of 52 [0.0]) and occupational status (8 of 52 [15.4]). Other inequities evaluated included rural/underresourced (11 of 52 [21.1]) and educational level (10 of 52 [19.2]). No trend was observed when examining inequities reported by year. CONCLUSION: Health inequities exist in orthopaedic trauma literature. Our study highlights multiple inequities in the field that need further investigation. Understanding current inequities and how to best mitigate them could improve patient care and outcomes in orthopaedic trauma surgery.

Asunto(s)