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