- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Poor consideration of publication bias
- 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 Error Publication bias Disclosure Low reporting quality Searching Low methodological quality Single reviewer |
| Problem(s) |
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 Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis Insufficient literature searches |
| 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? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |