RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Although the impact of microbial infections on orthopedic clinical outcomes is well recognized, the influence of viral infections on the musculoskeletal system might have been underestimated. AIM: To systematically review the available evidence on risk factors and musculoskeletal manifestations following viral infections and to propose a pertinent classification scheme. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Reference Citation Analysis (RCA), and Scopus for completed studies published before January 30, 2021, to evaluate risk factors and bone and joint manifestations of viral infection in animal models and patient registries. Quality assessment was performed using SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies, Moga score for case series, Wylde score for registry studies, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case-control studies. RESULTS: Six human and four animal studies were eligible for inclusion in the qualitative synthesis. Hepatitis C virus was implicated in several peri- and post-operative complications in patients without cirrhosis after major orthopedic surgery. Herpes virus may affect the integrity of lumbar discs, whereas Ross River and Chikungunya viruses provoke viral arthritis and bone loss. CONCLUSION: Evidence of moderate strength suggested that viruses can cause moderate to severe arthritis and osteitis. Risk factors such as pre-existing rheumatologic disease contributed to higher disease severity and duration of symptoms. Therefore, based on our literature search, the proposed clinical and pathogenetic classification scheme is as follows: (1) Viral infections of bone or joint; (2) Active bone and joint inflammatory diseases secondary to viral infections in other organs or tissues; and (3) Viral infection as a risk factor for post-surgical bacterial infection.
RESUMO
It is an undeniable fact that systematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical practice; however, conventional head-to-head meta-analyses do have limitations. In particular, studies can only be compared in a pair-wise fashion, and conclusions can only be drawn in the light of direct evidence. In contrast, network meta-analyses can not only compare multiple interventions but also utilize indirect evidence which increases their precision. On top of that, they can also rank competing interventions. In this mini-review, we have aimed to elaborate on the principles and techniques governing network meta-analyses to achieve a methodologically sound synthesis, thus enabling safe conclusions to be drawn in clinical practice. We have emphasized the prerequisites of a well-conducted Network Meta-Analysis (NMA), the value of selecting appropriate outcomes according to guidelines for transparent reporting, and the clarity achieved via sophisticated graphical tools. What is more, we have addressed the importance of incorporating the level of evidence into the results and interpreting the findings according to validated appraisal systems (i.e., the Grade of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system - GRADE). Lastly, we have addressed the possibility of planning future research via NMAs. Thus, we can conclude that NMAs could be of great value to clinical practice.
