Compliance of systematic reviews in plastic surgery with the PRISMA statement

Ref ID 186
First Author S.-Y. Lee
Journal JAMA FACIAL PLASTIC SURGERY
Year Of Publishing 2016
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26719993/
Keywords Protocols
Surgery
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
Problem(s) No registered or published protocol
Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Flawed risk of bias undertaken
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Number of systematic reviews included 79
Summary of Findings The median PRISMA score was 16 (out of 27) for the 79 included systematic reviews of plastic surgery published in 2013 and 2014 in 5 major plastic surgery journals. Reporting was poorest for items related to the use of review protocol (5%), presentation of data on the risk of bias of each study (18%), presenting the results of subgroup analyses (25%), presenting risk of bias across studies (24%), .
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No