Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on aesthetics and reconstructive breast surgery: A meta‐research

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1111/jep.14141

Pedro Henrique de Mattos Cavalcante, Rafael Leite Pacheco, Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca, Alex Sandro Moreira Fragoso de Oliveira, Rachel Riera

{"title":"Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on aesthetics and reconstructive breast surgery: A meta‐research","authors":"Pedro Henrique de Mattos Cavalcante, Rafael Leite Pacheco, Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca, Alex Sandro Moreira Fragoso de Oliveira, Rachel Riera","doi":"10.1111/jep.14141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SR) of randomized controlled trials on esthetics and reconstructive breast surgery.MethodsMeta‐research study with a broad search strategy was developed to retrieve all relevant systematic reviews. We evaluated the methodological and reporting guidance adopted by these reviews and assessed their adequacy to items from AMSTAR‐2 (methodological quality) and PRISMA 2020 (reporting quality). The protocol of this study was prospectively published in: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ucpgd.ResultsAfter the selection process, 15 SR were included; eight (60%) referred the use of a methodological guide and five (33.3%) invertedly referred PRISMA as the methodological guide. Reporting guidelines were referred by none of the included systematic review. The median adequacy to PRISMA‐2020 items was 42.9% (Q1 – 38.1%/Q3 – 95.2%) and to AMSTAR‐2 items was 33.3% (Q1 – 23.3%/Q3 – 93.3%) which reflects overall low reporting and methodological quality of included SR. The overall confidence in the results using AMSTAR‐2 framework was critically low in 73.3% of included SR. Although a small number of SR were included, a high correlation between the methodological and reporting quality was observed (Spearmean rho = 0.96, 95% bias‐corrected confidence interval = 0.84 to 0.99).ConclusionMethodological and reposting quality of SR of randomized clinical trials on esthetic or reconstructive breast surgery is poor. Half of the authors referred to the use of valid guidance to plan and conduct their reviews and none of them referred the use of a guidance for reporting their results.","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14141","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SR) of randomized controlled trials on esthetics and reconstructive breast surgery.MethodsMeta‐research study with a broad search strategy was developed to retrieve all relevant systematic reviews. We evaluated the methodological and reporting guidance adopted by these reviews and assessed their adequacy to items from AMSTAR‐2 (methodological quality) and PRISMA 2020 (reporting quality). The protocol of this study was prospectively published in: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ucpgd.ResultsAfter the selection process, 15 SR were included; eight (60%) referred the use of a methodological guide and five (33.3%) invertedly referred PRISMA as the methodological guide. Reporting guidelines were referred by none of the included systematic review. The median adequacy to PRISMA‐2020 items was 42.9% (Q1 – 38.1%/Q3 – 95.2%) and to AMSTAR‐2 items was 33.3% (Q1 – 23.3%/Q3 – 93.3%) which reflects overall low reporting and methodological quality of included SR. The overall confidence in the results using AMSTAR‐2 framework was critically low in 73.3% of included SR. Although a small number of SR were included, a high correlation between the methodological and reporting quality was observed (Spearmean rho = 0.96, 95% bias‐corrected confidence interval = 0.84 to 0.99).ConclusionMethodological and reposting quality of SR of randomized clinical trials on esthetic or reconstructive breast surgery is poor. Half of the authors referred to the use of valid guidance to plan and conduct their reviews and none of them referred the use of a guidance for reporting their results.

查看原文本刊更多论文

乳房美学与整形手术系统综述的方法和报告质量：荟萃研究

目的评估有关乳房美容和乳房整形手术的随机对照试验的系统综述（SR）的方法学和报告质量。方法采用广泛的检索策略开展了一项元研究，以检索所有相关的系统综述。我们评估了这些综述所采用的方法学和报告指南，并根据 AMSTAR-2（方法学质量）和 PRISMA 2020（报告质量）中的项目评估了这些综述的充分性。本研究的方案已在 https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ucpgd.ResultsAfter 上进行了前瞻性发布：在筛选过程中，共纳入了 15 篇综述；其中 8 篇（60%）提到了方法学指南的使用，5 篇（33.3%）反向引用了 PRISMA 作为方法学指南。所有纳入的系统综述均未提及报告指南。PRISMA-2020项目的充分性中位数为42.9%（第一季度-38.1%/第三季度-95.2%），AMSTAR-2项目的充分性中位数为33.3%（第一季度-23.3%/第三季度-93.3%），这反映出纳入的系统综述的报告和方法学质量总体较低。73.3%的被收录样本报告对使用 AMSTAR-2 框架得出的结果的总体置信度极低。虽然纳入的 SR 数量较少，但观察到方法学质量和报告质量之间存在高度相关性（Spearmean rho = 0.96，95% 偏差校正置信区间 = 0.84 至 0.99）。半数作者提到在计划和进行综述时使用了有效的指南，但没有一位作者提到在报告结果时使用了指南。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 医学-卫生保健

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

4.20%

发文量

143

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.