Pedro Henrique de Mattos Cavalcante, Rafael Leite Pacheco, Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca, Alex Sandro Moreira Fragoso de Oliveira, Rachel Riera
{"title":"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","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: <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\" xlink:href=\"https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ucpgd\">https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ucpgd</jats:ext-link>.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":"{\"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: <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink=\\\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\\\" xlink:href=\\\"https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ucpgd\\\">https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ucpgd</jats:ext-link>.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}","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}
Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on aesthetics and reconstructive breast surgery: A meta‐research
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.
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.