Reviewbronze2015

Compliance of Systematic Reviews in Plastic Surgery With the PRISMA Statement

Seon-Young Lee · Harkiran Sagoo · Katharine Whitehurst · Georgina Wellstead · Alexander James Fowler · Riaz Agha +1 more

34 citations0/0 files storedJAMA Facial Plastic Surgery

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Publishing and Open Access Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Systematic reviews attempt to answer research questions by synthesizing the data in primary articles. They are an increasingly important tool within evidence-based medicine, guiding clinical practice, future research, and health care policy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reporting quality of recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses in plastic surgery with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews published between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014, in 5 major plastic surgery journals. Screening, identification, and data extraction were performed independently by 2 teams. Articles were reviewed for compliance with reporting of 27 items in the PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was conducted from January 1 to July 30, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The sum of PRISMA checklist items (1-27) per systematic review. RESULTS: From an initial set of 163 articles, 79 met the inclusion criteria. The median PRISMA score was 16 of 27 items (59%) (range, 6%-26%; 95% CI, 14%-17%). Compliance varied between individual PRISMA items. It was poorest for items related to the use of review protocol (item 5; 4 articles [5%]) and presentation of data on the risk of bias of each study (item 19; 14 articles [18%]). Compliance was the highest for description of rationale (item 3; 78 articles [99%]), sources of funding and other support (item 27; 75 articles [95%]), and inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract (item 2; 75 articles [95%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The reporting quality of systematic reviews in plastic surgery requires improvement. Enforcement of compliance through journal submission systems, as well as improved education, awareness, and a cohesive strategy among all stakeholders, is called for. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 34 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2005Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews 2013Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Cited by

2016Longitudinal analysis of reporting and quality of systematic reviews in high-impact surgical journals 2017Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement 2018Systematic overview and critical appraisal of meta‐analyses of interventions in intensive care medicine 2019Reproducibility of search strategies of non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals is suboptimal: primary methodological study

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.