A Systematic Quality Evaluation of Meta-Analyses Related to Plastic Surgery

A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Publication Bias in the Plastic Surgery Literature

BACKGROUND

Publication bias (PB) is the preferential publishing of studies with statistically significant results. PB can skew findings of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), with potential consequences for patient care and health policy. This study aims to determine the extent to which SRs and MAs in the plastic surgery literature evaluate and report PB.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study assessed PB reporting and analysis from plastic surgery studies published between January 1, 2015, and June 19, 2020. Full texts of SRs and MAs were assessed by two reviewers for PB assessment methodology and analysis. Post hoc assessment of studies that did not originally analyze PB was performed using Egger regression, Duval, Tweedie trim-and-fill, and Copas selection models.

RESULTS

There were 549 studies evaluated, of which 531 full texts were included. PB was discussed by 183 studies (34.5%), and formally assessed by 97 studies (18.3%). Among SRs and MAs that formally assessed PB, PB was present in 24 studies (10.7%), not present in 52 (23.1%), and inconclusive in eight (3.6%); 141 studies (62.7%) did not report the results of their PB assessment. Funnel plots were the most common assessment method [ n = 88 (39.1%)], and 60 studies (68.2%) published funnel plots. The post hoc assessment revealed PB in 17 of 20 studies (85.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

PB is inadequately reported and analyzed among studies in the plastic surgery literature. Most studies that assessed PB found PB, as did post hoc analysis of nonreporting studies. Increased assessment and reporting of PB among SRs and MAs would improve the quality of evidence in plastic surgery.

Quality Regarding the Systematic Reviews in Breast Plastic Surgery

There are few data in the literature evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in breast plastic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of SR in breast plastic surgery. This is a secondary, observational and analytical study. SR studies on breast plastic surgery, published until 2020, were included. The search for articles was performed in the CCTR, LILACS, MEDLINE and SCIELO databases. After selection and full reading of the studies, they were evaluated according to the AMSTAR-2 instrument. The search identified 810 references, among which 583 did not meet the eligibility criteria, and 227 studies were evaluated. The median publication time of the articles was 57.0 ± 59.0 months, the average impact factor was 0.65 citations per month, and the AMSTAR-2 score was 66.2 ± 32.3. Among the articles evaluated, 39.65% performed a meta-analysis, 52.42% used PRISMA, and most articles pointed out the need for further studies to answer their proposed question (92.95%). Articles that used PRISMA had shorter publication times (39.0 ± 34.0 months) and higher AMSTAR-2 scores (77.6 ± 17.7). An increase in the number of publications and a tendency to increase the AMSTAR-2 score and decrease the impact factor of the article were observed (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the quality of SR in breast plastic surgery has been improving over the years; however, improved methodology and the development of randomized clinical trials are still needed to serve as a basis for SR.Level of Evidence III This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Adherence to literature search reporting guidelines in leading rheumatology journals' systematic reviews: umbrella review protocol

Literature searches are important components of systematic reviews. They are not only informative of the retrieval process, but they also set the data to be analyzed and influence additional components of systematic reviews. Despite the available guidelines, several studies have shown that the quality of reporting in systematic reviews is deficient in several medical fields. Systematic reviews may not comply completely with those guidelines despite explicitly stating they do. This protocol intends to answer to what extent systematic reviews published in rheumatology journals have complied with the PRISMA's search strategy guidelines published in 2009. The objective of the study is to analyze the compliance with the PRISMA (2009) search strategy guidelines among systematic reviews published in leading rheumatology journals. Inclusion criteria for this umbrella review protocol are systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) that mention having followed the PRISMA statement (2009) in their methods section, and published in journals listed in the Rheumatology category of the Journal of Citations Report 2020. Exclusion criteria are articles published before 2009; retraction letters, notes, expressions of concern; systematic reviews using PRISMA 2020. Databases to be consulted are Web of Science, PubMed and Scopus, from inception to present. Data summaries will be presented in graphs, figures, tables and network maps. A narrative synthesis will be described. This protocol complies with guidelines such as PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-A, PRISMA-P, PRISMA-S, PRESS, and JBI Manual for evidence synthesis, as long as it is suitable for umbrella review protocols. Articles in any language will be considered.

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012-2016: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Overviews of systematic reviews (overviews) attempt to systematically retrieve and summarize the results of multiple systematic reviews (SRs) for a given condition or public health problem. Two prior descriptive analyses of overviews found substantial variation in the methodological approaches used in overviews, and deficiencies in reporting of key methodological steps. Since then, new methods have been developed so it is timely to update the prior descriptive analyses. The objectives are to: (1) investigate the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 100 overviews published from 2012 to 2016 and (2) compare these recently published overviews (2012-2016) to those published prior to 2012 (based on the prior descriptive analyses).

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, and CDSR will be searched for overviews published 2012-2016, using a validated search filter for overviews. Only overviews written in English will be included. All titles and abstracts will be screened by one review author; those deemed not relevant will be verified by a second person for exclusion. Full-texts will be assessed for inclusion by two reviewers independently. Of those deemed relevant, a random sample of 100 overviews will be selected for inclusion. Data extraction will be either performed by one reviewer with verification by a second reviewer or by one reviewer only depending on the complexity of the item. Discrepancies at any stage will be resolved by consensus or consulting a third person. Data will be extracted on the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of each overview. Data will be analyzed descriptively. When data are available for both time points (up to 2011 vs. 2012-2016), we will compare characteristics by calculating risk ratios or applying the Mann-Whitney test.

DISCUSSION

Overviews are becoming increasingly valuable evidence syntheses, and the number of published overviews is increasing. However, former analyses found limitations in the conduct and reporting of overviews. This update of a recent sample of overviews will inform whether this has changed, while also identifying areas for further improvement.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The review will not be registered in PROSPERO as it does not meet the eligibility criterion of dealing with health-related outcomes.