Cited by 69Lower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation

Evaluation of the scope and quality of systematic reviews on nonpharmacological conservative treatment for patellofemoral pain syndrome

Barton, Christian J., Webster, Kate E., Menz, Hylton B.·2008·Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

Abstract

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality and scope of recently published systematic reviews on the topic of patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) and to provide an overview of their findings. BACKGROUND: PFPS is a commonly treated condition. There is a large body of literature on conservative nonpharmacological interventions for PFPS, including multiple systematic reviews, which require critiquing and summarizing. METHODS AND MEASURES: A systematic review of systematic reviews on conservative nonpharmacological treatment strategies for PFPS was performed. Published systematic reviews were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDISCUS, Current Contents, The Cochrane Library, and PEDro electronic databases from the year 2000 until May 2007. Cited reference searches of each author in the Web of Science complemented this search. Review quality was evaluated by a specifically designed scale and only high-quality reviews were retained to validate and summarize reported findings. RESULTS: Ten reviews met the inclusion criteria. Among them, only 3 were considered to be high quality, covering exercise, foot and knee orthoses, and ultrasound intervention for PFPS. None of the 3 reviews included literature published after the year 2001. Some limited evidence for the use of exercise, exercise combined with taping, and exercise combined with the use of a Protonics brace was found for treatment of individuals with PFPS. CONCLUSION: Published systematic reviews and clinical trials need to be conducted with more rigorous methodological design. There are no up-to-date, high-quality systematic reviews covering conservative nonpharmacological treatments for individuals with PFPS, which indicates that updates in all areas are needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2519/jospt.2008.2861

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 72 · Cited by 69

Authors
Barton, C. J., Webster, K. E., & Menz, H. B.
Affiliations
La Trobe University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy
Published
2008-09
Volume
38
Issue
9
Pages
529-541
ISSN
  • 0190-6011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-1344
OpenAlex
W1998658689
Cited by
69
References
72
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Lower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Keywords
patellofemoral pain, systematic review quality, exercise therapy, knee brace, foot orthoses, ultrasound therapy, taping
MeSH terms
Humans, Orthotic Devices, Review Literature as Topic, Ultrasonography, Exercise, Physical Therapy Specialty, Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review