Evaluation of the scope and quality of systematic reviews on nonpharmacological conservative treatment for patellofemoral pain syndrome
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the systematic reviews using the AMSTAR scale.
“Two independent reviewers (F.C.M. and L.S.M.) assessed the methodological quality of the systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses), assessing each of the selected studies based on the Modified Quality Assessment Scale for Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) developed by Barton et al. [19]”
From Behavior Modification Techniques on Patients with Chronic Pain in the Context of COVID-19 Telerehabilitation: An Umbrella Review (2022) · cites this paper as [19]
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