| Ref ID | 1296 |
| First Author | P. H. de Mattos Cavalcante |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2025 |
| URL | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.14141 |
| Keywords |
• Surgery • Low methodological quality • Protocols • Low reporting quality • Cosmetic procedures |
| Problem(s) |
• No registered or published protocol • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Intervention not described / defined |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Brazil |
| Checklists |
• PRISMA 2020 • AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To evaluate the methodological (AMSTAR-2) and reporting (PRISMA 2020) quality of systematic reviews indexed across the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (CDSR), Epistemonikos and Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE, via PubMed) up to on 19 December 2023, of randomized controlled trials on aesthetics and reconstructive breast surgery. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 15 systematic reviews indexed across the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (CDSR), Epistemonikos and Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE, via PubMed) up to on 19 December 2023, of randomized controlled trials on aesthetics and reconstructive breast surgery. Of the 15 included reviews, eight (60%) referred to the use of a methodological guide and five (33.3%) invertedly referred to PRISMA as the methodological guide. None of the reviews referred to a reporting guideline. The median adherence to PRISMA‐2020 items was 42.9% (Q1 –38.1%/Q3 – 95.2%) and to AMSTAR‐2 items was 33.3% (Q1 – 23.3%/Q3 – 93.3%) which reflects overall low reporting and methodological quality of the included reviews The overall confidence in the results using AMSTAR‐2 framework was critically low in 73.3% of the included reviews. Only one review had a fully reported research question, and none explained their study design criteria for inclusion; only 40% reported having a protocol. Although a small number of reviews were included, a high correlation between the methodological and reporting quality was observed (Spearmean rho = 0.96, 95% bias‐corrected confidence interval = 0.84 to 0.99). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 15 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 934 |
| Treatment impacted | Not Applicable |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |