Methodologic quality of systematic reviews published in the plastic and reconstructive surgery literature: a systematic review

Ref ID 78
First Author O. A. Samargandi
Journal PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
Year Of Publishing 2016
URL https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/wk/prs/2016/00000137/00000001/art00054
Keywords • Surgery
• Grey literature
• Low reporting quality
• Searching
• Risk of bias
• Transparency
Problem(s) • Grey literature excluded
• Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
• Single reviewer / lack of double checking
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
• Insufficient literature searches
• No quality assessment undertaken or reported
• Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Canada
Checklists • AMSTAR 1
Aim To assess the methodologic quality (AMSTAR) of systematic reviews in 10 high-impact plastic surgery journals published between 2003 to 2013.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings For the 190 included systematic reviews in 10 high-impact plastic surgery journals published between 2003 to 2013 the median AMSTAR score was 4 (interquartile range, 2.25 to 6.00) on a scale of 1 to 11. Only 64.2 % reported an a priori study design. Almost half of systematic reviews in plastic surgery included at least two independent reviewers for data extraction and study selection but only 13.2 percent used a measure of interviewer agreement in selecting and extracting data. Approximately three-quarters of included systematic reviews performed a comprehensive search strategy. 24.7% of reviews restricted included studies to published literature. Only 15.2 % of reviews provided a list of excluded studies. Only 35.3 percent of systematic reviews evaluated the methodologic quality of included studies. Only 2.6 percent of systematic reviews acknowledged sources of support.
Number of systematic reviews included 190
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 547
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description