Systematic Reviews in Craniofacial Trauma—Strengths and Weaknesses

Ref ID 296
First Author C. Hunter
Journal ANNALS OF PLASTIC SURGERY
Year Of Publishing 2016
URL https://journals.lww.com/annalsplasticsurgery/Abstract/2016/09000/Systematic_Reviews_in_Craniofacial.21.aspx
Keywords • Surgery
• Publication bias
• Error
• Low reporting quality
• Searching
• Disclosure
• Low methodological quality
• Single reviewer
Problem(s) • Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis
• Insufficient literature searches
• Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
• Single reviewer / lack of double checking
• Poor consideration of publication bias
• Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
• Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
Number of systematic reviews included 26
Summary of Findings The median AMSTAR score of all included systematic reviews was 4.5, consistent with a “poor-to-fair” quality. Common reasons for low methodological quality were: Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided; Single reviewer / lack of double checking; Poor consideration of publication bias; Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed; Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing; Insufficient literature searches and Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis
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