• Marcelo Cortês Cavalcante, Vinicius Ynoe de Moraes, Guilherme Ladeira Osés, Luis Renato Nakachima, and João Carlos Belloti.
• MD. Physician, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Discipline of Hand and Upper Limb Surgery, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo (SP), Brazil.
• Sao Paulo Med J. 2022 Jan 1; 141 (5): e20211020e20211020.

BackgroundCarpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is a common condition greatly affects patients' quality of life and ability to work. Systematic reviews provide useful information for treatment and health decisions.ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the methodological quality of previously published systematic reviews on the treatment of CTS.Design And SettingOverview of systematic reviews conducted at the Brazilian public higher education institution, São Paulo, Brazil.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library database for systematic reviews investigating the treatment of CTS in adults. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) were applied by two independent examiners.ResultsFifty-five studies were included. Considering the stratification within the AMSTAR measurement tool, we found that more than 76% of the analyzed studies were "low" or "very low". PRISMA scores were higher when meta-analysis was present (15.61 versus 10.40; P = 0.008), while AMSTAR scores were higher when studies performed meta-analysis (8.43 versus 5.59; P = 0.009) or when they included randomized controlled trials (7.95 versus 6.06; P = 0.043). The intra-observer correlation demonstrated perfect agreement (> 0.8), a Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.829, and an ICC of0.857. The inter-observer correlation indicated that AMSTAR was more reliable than PRISMA.ConclusionOverall, systematic reviews of the treatment of CTS are of poor quality. Reviews with better-quality conducted meta-analysis and included randomized controlled trials. AMSTAR is a better tool than PRISMA because it has a better performance and should be recommended in future studies.Registration Number In ProsperoCRD42020172328 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020172328).

13 keywords...

hide…