- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Insufficient literature searches
- 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 Transparency Grey literature Risk of bias Low reporting quality Searching |
| 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? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |