Abstract:Purpose This umbrella review aimed to identify, synthesise and critically appraise the findings of meta‐analyses that compare adverse events—rates of complications, reoperations and revisions—following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using unrestricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment. Methods Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses criteria, two authors independently screened articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and assessed the methodological quality based on the 16 domains of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR‐2). Effect sizes of difference in rates of complications were tabulated for each meta‐analysis. Studies included in the meta‐analyses were assessed to determine if they were on true unrestricted kinematic alignment. A secondary meta‐analysis was performed, excluding studies on restricted kinematic alignment techniques, to calculate pooled estimates of adverse events (odds ratio [OR] with its 95% confidence interval [CI]) in a common effects framework with inverse‐variance weighting. Results Of 78 potential records, 13 meta‐analyses were eligible for data extraction, which pooled data from 15 clinical studies (10 on unrestricted kinematic alignment, four on restricted kinematic alignment and one on inverse kinematic alignment). None of the meta‐analyses fulfilled all seven critical AMSTAR‐2 domains. Meta‐analyses categorised adverse events differently and used different measures for the effect sizes but revealed no differences between kinematic versus mechanical alignment. Exclusion of studies on restricted kinematic alignment techniques reduced total sample sizes for kinematic alignment from 658 to 318 and for mechanical alignment from 811 to 403. Secondary meta‐analyses exclusively on unrestricted kinematic alignment revealed no difference in complications without reoperation, reoperation without implant removal or reoperation with implant removal following kinematic versus mechanical alignment. Conclusion Meta‐analyses do not distinguish between various kinematic alignment techniques, and adverse events are compared using different metrics. Surgeons, researchers and editors should refrain from pooling data on various kinematic alignment techniques, and orthopaedic societies should promote standards for reporting adverse events and effect sizes to facilitate comparisons across future studies. Level of Evidence Level III.

Quality of Meta-Analyses in Major Leading Orthopedics Journals: A Systematic Review

Quality of Meta-analyses in Major Leading Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals: A Systematic Review.

Quality of Meta-Analyses in Major Leading Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals: A Systematic Review

Scientific research output in orthopaedics from China and other top-ranking countries: a 10-year survey of the literature

Bibliometric Analysis of Top 100 Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Orthopaedic Literature

Bibliometric Study of the Orthopaedic Publications from China

Current Orthopaedic Health Economic Literature: Quality Is High but Ethical and Societal Perspectives Are Lacking

Reporting Quality of Abstracts in Systematic Reviews in Orthodontics: An Observational Study

A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

RELATION BETWEEN IMPACT FACTOR IN ORTHOPEDIC JOURNALS AND LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Methodological Assessment of the 100 Most-Cited Articles in Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Last Decade Compared to the All-Time List

Clinically Significant Outcome Scores in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Shoulder and Knee Surgery Are Increasing in Prevalence but Often Reported Incorrectly

Reporting quality of meta-analyses in acupuncture: Investigating adherence to the PRISMA statement

From Quorom To Prisma: A Survey Of High-Impact Medical Journals' Instructions To Authors And A Review Of Systematic Reviews In Anesthesia Literature

A review of trauma and orthopaedic randomised clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals

A Critical Appraisal of Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: A Meta-Research Study

A Systematic Evaluation of the Quality of Meta-analysis in the Sport Science Literature

Inappropriate grouping of various kinematic alignment techniques and inconsistent reporting of adverse events invalidate comparison across studies: An umbrella review of meta‐analyses

Scientific Publication in Orthopedics Journals from Chinese Authors: a Survey of 10-Year Survey of the Literature

Journal Metrics of Orthopaedic Journals between 2016 and 2021: Trends and Comparisons with Other Specialties

Quality Appraisal of Evidence from Meta-Analytic Studies on Interventions for Cartilage Defects of the Knee