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	• 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
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes