Systematic reviews in burns care: poor quality and getting worse

Ref ID 253
First Author J. M. Campbell
Journal JOURNAL OF BURN CARE & RESEARCH
Year Of Publishing 2017
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28253213/
Keywords Protocols
Publication bias
Risk of bias
Dermatology
Problem(s) Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Poor consideration of publication bias
No registered or published protocol
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Number of systematic reviews included 44
Summary of Findings The overall quality of the 44 included burns care systematic reviews was low, with an average methodological quality of 55% and an average compliance with reporting guidelines of 70%. Correlation analysis showed that adherence to reporting guidelines has been relatively stable, but methodological quality has deteriorated (r = −.32, P < .05). Quality did not have a significant effect on citation rate. The likelihood of publication bias assessment and assessment of conflict of interest of included studies scored particularly poorly (25 and 14%). Additionally, only 66% of studies utilized an a priori protocol or performed critical appraisal.
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? Yes