PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Numerous systematic reviews have been published comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing posterior stabilized (PS) versus cruciate-retaining (CR) procedures in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but with some overlaps and contradictions. The objectives of this study were (1) to perform an overview of current systematic reviews comparing PS versus CR in TKA, by evaluating their methodological quality and risk of bias, and (2) to provide recommendations through the best evidence.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search of systematic reviews comparing PS and CR in TKA, published until June 2021 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Included systematic reviews were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias by the AMSTAR2 instrument and ROBIS tool, respectively. The choice of best evidence was conducted according to the Jadad decision algorithm.
UNASSIGNED: A total of eight systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion in this study. The Jadad decision algorithm suggested that reviews with the highest AMSTAR2 scores should be selected. According to the ROBIS tool, there were three reviews with a low risk of bias and five with a high risk of bias. Consequently, one systematic review conducted by Verra et al. with the highest AMSTAR2 score and low risk of bias was selected as the best evidence.
UNASSIGNED: Although current systematic reviews demonstrated some statistical differences in clinical presentation and functional outcomes between PS and CR, the current outcome indicators cannot be taken to provide recommendations for undergoing PS or CR. The decision for prosthesis selection could be made mostly based on the surgeon\'s preference, indications and other indicators.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search of systematic reviews comparing PS and CR in TKA, published until June 2021 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Included systematic reviews were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias by the AMSTAR2 instrument and ROBIS tool, respectively. The choice of best evidence was conducted according to the Jadad decision algorithm.
UNASSIGNED: A total of eight systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion in this study. The Jadad decision algorithm suggested that reviews with the highest AMSTAR2 scores should be selected. According to the ROBIS tool, there were three reviews with a low risk of bias and five with a high risk of bias. Consequently, one systematic review conducted by Verra et al. with the highest AMSTAR2 score and low risk of bias was selected as the best evidence.
UNASSIGNED: Although current systematic reviews demonstrated some statistical differences in clinical presentation and functional outcomes between PS and CR, the current outcome indicators cannot be taken to provide recommendations for undergoing PS or CR. The decision for prosthesis selection could be made mostly based on the surgeon\'s preference, indications and other indicators.
摘要：
未经评估：已经发表了许多系统评价，比较了全膝关节置换术（TKA）中接受后稳定型（PS）和交叉保留（CR）手术的患者的预后，但是有一些重叠和矛盾。本研究的目的是（1）对TKA中PS与CR的比较进行当前系统评价的概述，通过评估他们的方法论质量和偏见风险，(2)通过最佳证据提供建议。
未经评估：对比较TKA中PS和CR的系统评价进行系统搜索，在2021年6月之前发布的是使用MEDLINE进行的，EMBASE,和Cochrane图书馆数据库。通过AMSTAR2工具和ROBIS工具评估纳入的系统评价的方法学质量和偏倚风险，分别。最佳证据的选择是根据Jadad决策算法进行的。
UNASSIGNED：共有8篇系统综述符合纳入本研究的条件。Jadad决策算法建议应选择AMSTAR2得分最高的评论。根据ROBIS工具,有3篇评价偏倚风险低,5篇评价偏倚风险高.因此,Verra等人进行的一项系统评价。选择AMSTAR2评分最高且偏倚风险低的证据作为最佳证据.
UASSIGNED：尽管目前的系统评价显示PS和CR在临床表现和功能结局方面存在一些统计学差异，目前的结果指标不能为进行PS或CR提供建议。选择假体的决定主要基于外科医生的偏好，指标和其他指标。
未经评估：对比较TKA中PS和CR的系统评价进行系统搜索，在2021年6月之前发布的是使用MEDLINE进行的，EMBASE,和Cochrane图书馆数据库。通过AMSTAR2工具和ROBIS工具评估纳入的系统评价的方法学质量和偏倚风险，分别。最佳证据的选择是根据Jadad决策算法进行的。
UNASSIGNED：共有8篇系统综述符合纳入本研究的条件。Jadad决策算法建议应选择AMSTAR2得分最高的评论。根据ROBIS工具,有3篇评价偏倚风险低,5篇评价偏倚风险高.因此,Verra等人进行的一项系统评价。选择AMSTAR2评分最高且偏倚风险低的证据作为最佳证据.
UASSIGNED：尽管目前的系统评价显示PS和CR在临床表现和功能结局方面存在一些统计学差异，目前的结果指标不能为进行PS或CR提供建议。选择假体的决定主要基于外科医生的偏好，指标和其他指标。
