Objective To critically appraise the quality of published systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in tendinopathy with regard to handling and reporting of results with special emphasis on strength of evidence assessment. Data sources Medline from inception to June 2020. Study eligibility All SRs of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of any intervention(s) on any location of tendinopathy. Data extraction and synthesis Included SRs were appraised with the use of a 12-item tool devised by the authors arising from the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and other relevant guidance. Subgroup analyses were performed based on impact factor (IF) of publishing journals and date of publication. Results A total of 57 SRs were included published in 38 journals between 2006 and 2020. The most commonly used risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment tool and strength of evidence assessment tool were the Cochrane Collaboration RoB tool and the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group tool, respectively. The mean score on the appraisal tool was 46.5% (range 0%–100%). SRs published in higher IF journals (>4.7) were associated with a higher mean score than those in lower IF journals (mean difference 26.4%±8.8%, p=0.004). The mean score of the 10 most recently published SRs was similar to that of the first 10 published SRs (mean difference 8.3%±13.7%, p=0.54). Only 23 SRs (40%) used the results of their RoB assessment in data synthesis and more than half (n=30; 50%) did not assess the strength of evidence of their results. Only 12 SRs (21%) assessed their strength of evidence appropriately. Conclusions In light of the poor presentation of evidence identified by our review, we provide recommendations to increase transparency and reproducibility in future SRs.

中文翻译：

---

我们是否需要改进肌腱病管理中的证据报告？对系统评价的批判性评价以及证据强度评估的建议

目的 严格评估已发表的肌腱病随机对照试验 (RCT) 系统评价 (SR) 在处理和报告结果方面的质量，特别强调证据强度评估。数据来源 Medline 从成立到 2020 年 6 月。研究资格 所有随机对照试验的 SR，评估任何干预措施对任何肌腱病部位的有效性。数据提取和综合 使用作者根据系统评价和元分析中的首选报告项目声明和其他相关指南设计的 12 项工具对包含的 SR 进行评估。根据出版期刊的影响因子 (IF) 和出版日期进行亚组分析。结果 2006 年至 2020 年间，共有 57 篇 SR 被收录在 38 种期刊上。最常用的偏倚风险 (RoB) 评估工具和证据强度评估工具分别是 Cochrane Collaboration RoB 工具和 Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group 工具。评估工具的平均得分为 46.5%（范围 0%–100%）。发表在较高 IF 期刊 (>4.7) 的 SR 的平均得分高于在较低 IF 期刊中的平均得分 (平均差 26.4%±8.8%, p=0.004)。最近发表的 10 篇 SR 的平均得分与前 10 篇发表的 SR 相似（平均差 8.3%±13.7%，p=0.54）。只有 23 个 SR（40%）在数据合成中使用了他们的 RoB 评估结果，超过一半（n=30；50%）没有评估他们结果的证据强度。只有 12 个 SR (21%) 适当地评估了他们的证据强度。