Issues affecting the level of prosthetics research evidence: Secondary analysis of a systematic review

Systematic reviews of scientific literature are valuable sources of synthesized knowledge. Systematic review results may also be used to inform readers about challenges inherent to an area of research, guide future research efforts, and facilitate improvements in evidence quality.To identify methodological issues that affected the overall level of scientific evidence reported in a contemporary systematic review and to offer suggestions for enhancing publications' contribution to the overall evidence.Secondary analysis of a systematic review.Publications included in a systematic review related to microprocessor-controlled prosthetic knees were analyzed with respect to established methodological quality criteria. Common issues were identified and discussed.Internal validity was commonly affected by variable comparison conditions, limited justification of accommodation time, potential fatigue and learning effects, lack of blinding, small sample sizes, limited evidence of measurement reliability, subject attrition, and limited descriptions of selection criteria. Similarly, external validity was affected by limited descriptions of the study sample, indeterminate representativeness, and suboptimal description of the interventions.Results suggest that efforts to address methodological limitations, educate evidence consumers, and improve research reporting are needed to advance the quality and use of evidence in the field of prosthetics.Critical analysis of the strengths and limitations of publications included in a systematic review can inform evidence consumers and contributors about challenges inherent to a field of research. Results of this analysis suggest that efforts to address identified limitations are needed to enhance the overall level of prosthetics evidence.