Review2015

Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Literature

Osama A. Samargandi · Haroon Hasan · Achilleas Thoma

36 citations0/0 files storedPlastic & Reconstructive 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 scientometrics and bibliometrics research Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Well-conducted systematic reviews have a critical role in informing evidence-based decision-making in plastic surgery. The authors' objective was to assess the methodologic quality of systematic reviews in the plastic surgery literature. METHODS: The authors systematically assessed all systematic reviews in 10 high-impact plastic surgery journals using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2003 to 2013. These were evaluated for methodologic quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), a validated 11-point instrument. RESULTS: After removal of duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 190 systematic reviews met eligibility criteria. The majority of systematic reviews were published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (n = 88). The most common domain covered was reconstruction (17.9 percent). Using AMSTAR, the median score was 4 (interquartile range, 2.25 to 6.00) on a scale of 1 to 11. No increase in AMSTAR score was observed with time (p = 0.18). Almost half of all systematic reviews (48.4 percent) included at least two independent data extractors, and less than one-third of them (15.3 percent) searched unpublished studies or provided a list of both included and excluded studies (14.8 percent). The methodologic quality of included primary studies was evaluated in 35.3 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews in plastic surgery demonstrated inadequate adherence to methodologic standards of quality, which raises concerns about validity. There has been an increase in the number of systematic reviews published in plastic surgery over the past decade, yet there has been no significant improvement observed in methodologic quality.

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 — 36 citations exist upstream.

References

2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 1997Meta-analysis: Principles and procedures 1994Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews 2005Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources 2009AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2007Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography 1990The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence 1995Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists

Cited by

2019Meta-Analyses in Plastic Surgery: Can We Trust Their Results?2017“Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews in radiation oncology: A systematic review”2017Why the p Value Alone Is Not Enough: The Need for Confidence Intervals in Plastic Surgery Research 2018Reporting Adverse Events in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

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.