Methodological and reporting quality of qualitative evidence in the field of lower limb orthoses: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of qualitative studies conducted in the field of lower limb orthoses (LLOs). The following electronic databases were searched from inception to 2022: PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, WoS, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and RehabData. Two authors independently screened and selected the potential studies. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programs qualitative checklist. In addition, the reporting quality of included studies was assessed using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) tool. The mean methodological quality score of included studies was 8 (from min = 2 to max = 9.5), and most of the studies had a score of more than 7.5. However, SRQR findings revealed that the overall reporting quality of included studies was not desirable in that the mean score was about 15.44 (from min = 6 to max = 19.5) out of 21. In total, the methodological quality of qualitative studies published in the field of LLOs was moderate. Further, the adherence of these studies to available reporting guidelines was unsatisfactory. As a result, when designing, performing, and reporting qualitative investigations, authors should pay more attention to these criteria.

KEYWORDS:

• methodological quality
• orthotics
• rehabilitation
• reporting quality
• systematic review

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the individuals for helping the research team throughout the study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Authors’ contributions

S.Sh, K.B.L, S.T.H, and M.H were involved in the study’s conception and design. S.Sh created the search strings and carried out the search. S.Sh, K.B.L, and M.H took part in the screening and selection process, as well as assessing methodological and reporting quality. All authors were involved in the first draft and final version editing.

Supplementary data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2023.2199056.

Additional information

Funding

This study has been funded by Health Policy Research Center affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (No. 26552).