Article

Systematic reviews of scientific literature are valuable sources of
synthesized knowledge. Systematic review results may also be used to inform
readers about challenges inherent to an area of research, guide future research
efforts, and facilitate improvements in evidence quality. OBJECTIVES: To identify
methodological issues that affected the overall level of scientific evidence
reported in a contemporary systematic review and to offer suggestions for
enhancing publications' contribution to the overall evidence. STUDY DESIGN:
Secondary analysis of a systematic review. METHODS: Publications included in a
systematic review related to microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees were
analyzed with respect to established methodological quality criteria. Common
issues were identified and discussed. RESULTS: Internal validity was commonly
affected by variable comparison conditions, limited justification of
accommodation time, potential fatigue and learning effects, lack of blinding,
small sample sizes, limited evidence of measurement reliability, subject
attrition, and limited descriptions of selection criteria. Similarly, external
validity was affected by limited descriptions of the study sample, indeterminate
representativeness, and suboptimal description of the interventions. CONCLUSION:
Results suggest that efforts to address methodological limitations, educate
evidence consumers, and improve research reporting are needed to advance the
quality and use of evidence in the field of prosthetics.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE:
Critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of publications included in a
systematic review can inform evidence consumers and contributors about challenges
inherent to a field of research. Results of this analysis suggest that efforts to
address identified limitations are needed to enhance the overall level of prosthetics evidence.
CI - (c) The International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics 2014.

Langue : ANGLAIS