Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality, report quality, and evidence quality of a meta-analysis (MA) and systematic review (SR) of the efficacy of acupotomy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and provided a reference for clinical decision-making. METHODS: We searched 8 databases to collect systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy of acupotomy in the treatment of KOA from January 30, 2018, to January 31, 2023. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 scale, the quality of the literature reports was scored using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systems Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 Version (PRISMA 2020),and the quality of the evidence was graded using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) scale. RESULTS: Nine systematic reviews including 35 outcome indicators were included. AMSTAR 2 evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies, and 1 was of low quality, 8 were of very low quality, and the entries with poor scores were 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, and 13. By PRISMA 2020, there were some reporting deficiencies, and quality problems were mainly reflected in the abstract, information sources, search strategy, synthesis methods, reporting bias assessment, certainty assessment, reporting biases, certainly of evidence, registration and protocol. The GRADE classification results showed that there were 2 medium-quality evidences, 7 low-quality evidences, and 26 very low-quality evidences. The main factors of degradation were limitations, imprecision, and publication bias. CONCLUSION: Acupotomy had been a promising complementary treatment for KOA. However, due to the low quality of the SRs/MAs supporting these results, high-quality studies with rigorous study designs and larger samples were needed before widespread recommendations could be made.