The Quality of Systematic Reviews in Head and Neck Microsurgery: A Perspective from Plastic Surgery and Otolaryngology

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 .

The quality of systematic reviews addressing peripheral nerve repair and reconstruction

While systematic reviews are regarded as the strongest level of medical evidence, inconsistency in the quality and rigor of systematic reviews raises concerns about their use as a tool in guiding quality delivery in evidence-based clinical practice. The objective of this present study was to assess methodological soundness of systematic reviews with a particular focus on peripheral nerve repair and reconstruction. We performed a comprehensive search using PubMed and Scopus to identify all systematic reviews published on peripheral nerve reconstruction in 9 high-impact surgical journals. Two authors independently performed literature searches, screened abstracts, and extracted data. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR criteria. Initial search retrieved 184 articles. After screening duplicates, titles, abstracts, and conducting full text reviews, 26 studies met inclusion criteria. Of those, 18 (65%) were published by Plastic Surgery, 7 (27%) by Orthopedic Surgery, and 1 (4%) by Occupational Therapy. The total number of systematic reviews published on peripheral nerves each year has shown an increasing trend from 2004 through 2015. The overall median AMSTAR score was 5, reflecting a "fair" quality. There was no evidence of AMSTAR score improvement over time. Although the number of systematic reviews published on peripheral nerve repair has risen over the last decade, their quality has not exhibited the same increase. This highlights the necessity to increase familiarity with and conform to methodological quality criteria in order to improve the integrity of evidence-based medicine in peripheral nerve repair and reconstruction.