biostudies-literatureUnknown4(2)Lee D<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate the quality and characteristics of systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, in the clinical orthopaedic sports medicine literature from 2015 to 2019 and to compare the results to previous findings from a similar analysis from 2009 to 2013.<h4>Methods</h4>All clinical orthopaedic sports medicine and meta-analyses published from 2015 to 2019 published in <i>The American Journal of Sports Medicine</i>, <i>Arthroscopy</i>, <i>The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery</i>, <i>Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology</i>, <i>Arthroscopy</i>, and <i>Sports Health</i> were reviewed. These were evaluated according to guidelines from Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. Results were compared to the quality of publications from 2009 to 2013.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 516 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this study. Of these, 17.1% of studies included Level I or II evidence only, whereas 79.1% included Level IV or V studies. When compared to the previous study from 2009 to 2013, which demonstrated 32% of Level I or II evidence studies and 53% Level IV or V, there was a significant decrease in the level of evidence in the more recent study period (<i>P</i> < .001). The average Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scores were 81% and the average Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scores 56%, which are declines from 87% and 73%, respectively (<i>P</i> < .001, <i>P</i> < .001).<h4>Conclusions</h4>There has been a significant increase in the volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthopaedic sports medicine. This has coincided with significant declines in the level of evidence, as well as declines in methodologic and reporting quality.<h4>Clinical relevance</h4>Clinicians increasingly use systematic reviews to drive their treatment decisions. Therefore, the quality of systematic reviews in orthopaedic sports medicine merits assessment.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitatione789-e795https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9706954biostudies-literatureDeclining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review.PMC9706954Tjoumakaris FPFreedman KBLencer APaul RLee DfalseDeclining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review.<h4>Purpose</h4>To evaluate the quality and characteristics of systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, in the clinical orthopaedic sports medicine literature from 2015 to 2019 and to compare the results to previous findings from a similar analysis from 2009 to 2013.<h4>Methods</h4>All clinical orthopaedic sports medicine and meta-analyses published from 2015 to 2019 published in <i>The American Journal of Sports Medicine</i>, <i>Arthroscopy</i>, <i>The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery</i>, <i>Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology</i>, <i>Arthroscopy</i>, and <i>Sports Health</i> were reviewed. These were evaluated according to guidelines from Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. Results were compared to the quality of publications from 2009 to 2013.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 516 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this study. Of these, 17.1% of studies included Level I or II evidence only, whereas 79.1% included Level IV or V studies. When compared to the previous study from 2009 to 2013, which demonstrated 32% of Level I or II evidence studies and 53% Level IV or V, there was a significant decrease in the level of evidence in the more recent study period (<i>P</i> < .001). The average Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scores were 81% and the average Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scores 56%, which are declines from 87% and 73%, respectively (<i>P</i> < .001, <i>P</i> < .001).<h4>Conclusions</h4>There has been a significant increase in the volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthopaedic sports medicine. This has coincided with significant declines in the level of evidence, as well as declines in methodologic and reporting quality.<h4>Clinical relevance</h4>Clinicians increasingly use systematic reviews to drive their treatment decisions. Therefore, the quality of systematic reviews in orthopaedic sports medicine merits assessment.2022-01-01T00:00:00Z2022 Apr2025-04-19T13:24:40.236Z2025-04-19T13:24:40.236ZS-EPMC97069543645782210.1016/j.asmr.2021.11.013