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
Number of systematic reviews included	190
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.
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