| 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 |
• Dermatology • Risk of bias • Publication bias • Protocols |
| 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Australia |
| Checklists |
• PRISMA 2009 • AMSTAR 1 |
| Aim | To assess the reporting (PRISMA) and methodological quality (AMSTAR) of systematic reviews on burns care published in peer-reviewed journals between 2009 - 2015. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 44 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 413 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |