A Critical Appraisal of Reporting Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Addressing Knee Chondral Defects

IntroductionKnee chondral defects are a common cause of pain and dysfunction. This study assessed the prevalence of spin and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on knee chondral defects in orthopedic literature.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted in May 2025 using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Reviews addressing knee chondral defects in orthopedics were included. Abstracts were evaluated for 15 spin types, and methodological quality was rated using AMSTAR 2. Data on PRISMA adherence, publication year, and Level of Evidence were extracted. Associations between study characteristics and spin were analyzed using t tests, ANOVA, Fisher's exact tests, and Spearman's rank correlations.ResultsOf 238 studies identified, 21 reviews met criteria. Spin was present in 18 (85.7%). The most common types were type 3 (66.7%), type 5 (57.1%), and type 1 (52.4%). Misleading reporting occurred in 85.7%, misleading interpretation in 81.0%, and extrapolation in 52.4%. AMSTAR 2 rated 95.2% as "critically low" and 4.8% as "moderate." Journal impact factor correlated with spin presence (P = 0.016) and greater number of spin types (P = 0.012).Discussion/ConclusionMost reviews on knee chondral defects contained spin and were of poor quality, underscoring the need for critical appraisal and improved reporting.